RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1611, 31 October 1882, Page 2

R ESID ENT MA GIST RAT E'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

rid.vy.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Whare Burning on the Puahoe Block. Pirr. case Noka v. Paiker came on for hearing this morning, and occupied the Court throughout the entire day. The claim was for £ I 15s, the value of potatoes said to have been destioyed in a wliare the property of plaintiff, who is an .iboiiginal native, which was alleged to have been set lire to by defendant. Mr Giesham appeared for the plaintiff, and Mi 1 liesketh for the defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff went to ■«how that on the 25th of August last Mr Paiker, the defendant, came up to the \\ hare in question, took a match from his pocket and set fire to the whaic, which was burned down. The potatoes, on account of which plaintiff sued, were in the whare at the time and were destroyed. Four other native witnesses corroborated the statement oi the plaintiff. The cvi deuce for the defendant went to show that Mr Parker had never set fire to the whare, either on the 25th August or at any other time. This evidence was sub sttintiated by two other European wit nesses besides the defendant, who were present at the time the whaie was binned, but who declined to say who did set fire to it. \VitucsBes were also called t<prove that the plaintiff bad had notice to I'leav off the land, and had asked M. Parker for time to do so. Evidence of title to the land was also submitted. Mr Moon, who was manager ot the Puahoe Block in IS7O, g<*\e evidence to the effect that neither Nok.i. the plaintiff, nor any of the otho' natives concerned in the case weio on the block at that time, and copse quently must hay- come there after th>lcssees were in possession. Thn counsel on either side having ad dressed the Bench, His Worship ies* ne i [ judgment until the following morning

I Saturday.— (Before Mr H. \V. Nort .- croft, KM.) The Court opened at 10 o'clock. His Woisliip m giving judgiii'Mt Mie case Noka v. P-uker, thought tli ■ iras a great conflict between tlie M;i" .met European eviilencc ; but h-n i <„ carefully considered it, he thought tli - the evidence of Riley and Cooliram*, tn of defendant's witnesses, who had com ior ward and stated tliat they wei. present at the time the whare \vm on h're, and sworo that Mr Paiker did not do it, was worthy of ciedonco, inasmucli ih they i an a considci.vble risk of being I?io3ccutcd themsehes as being the guilt) i.uties. He would theiefore give judg ment for the defendant, with cosks.

Alleged Arson. Pk.TiTi r. Tluazy. — lii this case the accused w,is chained on the information of •lie Petti, an aboriginal native, for th.it he diil on the 2i)th August last, mahei- • tusly and feloniously set fire to the w hare of the said Petti, situated at the Parehakura settlement on the J'u.ihoe block. Constable Gillies conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Hcsketli defended tlie accused. The evidence of the informant went to show that on tlie d.iy in question, lie and several other natives were present by his whaie, when the aceu&ed, Riley, an employe" on the pstate of Mess Giice and Parker, came up to the whure, struck a niatcli, and set it on Hre. Also, that no other European was present at the time with the exception of accused. The first two witnesses called (natives) corroborated the evidence of tiio informant minutely in every particular. The next of informant's witnesses, however, a native named Pahanro, in giving evidence started by corroborating the evidence of tlie previous witnesses, stating that there was no European present other than accused at the time. His Worship here asked witness if he did not remember coming to him the day after the lire, to Te Awaimitu, and stating that both the Cochranes were there. After about ten minutes mute consideration the witness replied that now he remembered having said so, and that both the Cochranes were there, The witness was then subjected to severe cross-examination by Mr Hesketli, when the case for the informant completely broke down. One or two other witnesses having been called, Constable Gillies closed the informant's case. Mr Hesketli, in addressing the Court on behalf of the accuspd, said he had no hesitation, without going into the evidence for the defence, in asking His Worship to dismiss the case, on the ground that the matter given in evidence was of the most unreliable nature. He was sorry to say, and the Court was doubtless aware of the fact, that the evidence which had been given by informant and his witnesses was throughout a tissue of falsehoods. One witness had sworn Cochrane was not present at the time tlie whare was burned, when he was actually j standing beside him at the time the whare was burning. Another witness had made a most shocking statement as regards who wore present, in which he had been contradicted by one of his own party. He had to thank His Worship for contradicting the -witness w\\o said , none 'of 'the Cochranes were' present, and who' had previously admitted to His , Worship l £hat , that they were present. In fd!ct;*the witness was 30 diunbfounded at being found bat; that he did not actnally'know 1 where he* was standing. 1 The evidence uf Peiti, another of the witnesses,' IVfr "He'skisth chatac.fceria'Hl Jis a complete fabrication "all through! ' In' fact some ,of the 'informant's, witnesses' evideqde. weht^Tßhow' trtiat ,'thfct >

were not on the ground > at' the' time of the fire at all, but were at Te Awamutu as Constable Gillies had expected. Constable Gillies, said he would not offer any further evidence, as he had been misled by the natives. His Worship dismissed, the information without calling on the defence.