RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CAMBUJDGE. Thursday.—(Before Mr Northcroft, R.M., and Mr Thos. Wells, J.P.)

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1639, 6 January 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CAMBUJDGE. Thursday.— (Before Mr North croft, R.M., and Mr Thos. Wells, J.P.)

The Pukekura Native Ejection Case. In opening the above case this morning His Worship asked Mr Hay what other evidence lie had to call in the case, and what that evidence Wcis likely to prove. Mr Hay said he proposed 'to call a number of witnesses to identify the parties who came with Mr Walker on the day named in the information to the Mangapiko i settlement. The evidence would also prove that a certain notice was found iixed to one of the , houses in in the Mangapiko settlement. That notice gave the people till November to clear out, or to retire from possession. Having heard Mr Hay, His Worship said the .Bench proposed, having heard the evidence of the M'itnesses,. before the Court, to itry and shorten the case as much as.possible, unless it was imperative that .the>ofcher, witness named by Mr Hay should bewailed; /Then, they would invite Mr.Hesketh to state the nature ,of his defence, and having done so they (the Bench) would express an opinion as to whether or not there was a .case for the Supreme Court, j Mr Hay said he had no desire to stand in ths wtfyi'qf sliorteuin'a; the cSSe^'itr would'jf however, be necessary kb ctaVmU ljesses to identify those who were present at ! ' Mangapiko, and /.to testify, to ,, the , posting ef -ithemotioes referred! to:, •',/*, l( , One of the accused, 1 Tiamedi.Cochrane, was dischargea from custody, Mr Hay stating the^ro'secutiom haU.non evidence to bffai' agdrotihim, he not beings present , at Mangap^io! •, . // J|( »!ipi«U t t > Jt QA! 1 Mr Hesktfth then stated the nature of the defencl, J H&fyij^idedj |to pi^'e (1) that in 1870 all the grabtees Versed the laud ! tb* ! MelsBrsGi'ice ! and''BennMfor)asterin Of 21 years. (2). That ' -Messrs Orice and^ ;3enn entered intopoBaeßBiQ'4>^ n SjWs?KiP^ ;he land exclusively from that year up. to . ;he.p/e^st^ime. )^|heje,^jy^y i '

aii&Benn's "attorneyi'was'lliih flTffill'ofc™ cupation of the land with cattle, men, houses, and works of all descriptions. (4). That the natives never asked permission to come on the, land?; And thought "repeatedly requested lo go they' refused' to do io.. (5). That a, royal commission was appointed to. enquire as .to -whetlierj the natives had any right to lie" on v the land, and the commission found against them. They then appealed to Parliament, and the House also decided against them. Notwithstanding, they still refused to go. (6). That when the defendant, Mr Walker, and his assistants entered upon the land, and removed the fences, using no- force, nor touching the persons of the natives, until they (the natives) tried to take the spades from the men. (7). That the lease is still in full force, and as the lessees never left the land the natives never obtained any possession to it, upon which possession the defendants could forcibly. enter. After retiring for some time, their Worships returned into Court and stated they had decided that Mr Hay's other witnesses should be'called to identify the accused. ' Tapa Te Whata was called and gave evidence, but was unable to identify any of the prisoners. Erena Tana, a native woman, was next called and identified twenty-three, only making one mistake, notwithstanding the fact that there were a number of strangers in the Court at the timeThe Court adjourned at 4.30., but, shortly after, their Worships returned into Court, the ' counsel of both parties being present. The Resident Magistrate said : We have considered the case as it now stands. We have likewise considered the effect of the evidence which the defence intend to bring forward, and my opinion is this : That even if the defence do prove all which they have stated they intend to prove, yet, as the natives were allowed to remain on the laiu^for so long a time they acquired an occupation or possession which made it unlawful for the defendants to do what they did. The conclusion I have come to is, that they should be committed for trial to a higher Court. They (the natives) had actual physical possession, and that having j been fixed for so long, is in my judgment quite sufficient. Mr Wells, however, does not agree with me. Mr Wells, the other Magistrate, said : I regret very much that I am compelled to differ from the conclusion come to by His Worship. Hitherto we have sat often together, and unanimity has prevailed in our decisions. But the conclusion I have come to is this : That if the defendants do prove all that their counsel lias stated he intends to prove there should be no committal, for such evidence would establish a want of possession on the part of the natives, and, therefore, there could not have been any forcible entry. His Worship, theR.M., added : That if it could be shown that the natives had committed perjury iv saying they did not receive the rent or otherwise ; then if their evidence was proved false in one particular, it would be taken as false in other particulars, and that might alter the case. The Court then adjourned till the fol lowing morning, Mr E. Hewitt going bail for all defendants. Yesterday. The case was continued before Mr Northcroft, R,M., and Mr Wells, J.P., yesterday. The day for the most part was taken up with the examination of the witness Ekana, who gave evidence something similar to that of previous witnesses, ahd identified about fourteen of the accused as having been at Mangapiko on the day in question. Witness, in the course of his evidence, stated that Thomas Mooney and another accused named Jones were on the ground, and that Mooney had a spade, and was digging up the ground and pulling clown the fences. Mr Hcsketh informed the Court that neither of these persons Mas near the scene of action on the day alleged, and consequently the witness, who swore positively, must be in error. In the course of his examination, also by Mr Hesketh, he stated he had never been at the Chatham Islands. He subsequently admitted having gone there on a cheap trip in a Government vessel with a person named Te Kooti, and that he had returned to New Zealand with Te Kooti in another ship, and landed at Kapiti, where he deserted Te Kooti and went to Maugapiko, Mr Hesketh then proceeded to ask the witness questions relative to the Royal Commission which sat at Cambridge some time ago to enquire into the title of the Ngatikawhata, but these questions were objected to by Mr Hay, who contended that befoie Mr Hesketh could ask any qoestions ou the matter he would have to produce the commission in Court. Mr Hesketh replied at some length to MiHay's objection. His experience since lie had come to be engaged in native cases, or at least in cases where native witnesses were giving evidence, was that it was best to ask each witness a- diffcient set of questions so as to elicit the truth. He had found it was dangerous, from past experiences to ask them all the same questions. He was aware of the fact that slates were used by natives in suck _ cases as that before the Court. One person listened to what was said in Court, and then told the witness who was to come in next what to say. Mr Hay was supported in his objection by the Bench, and Mr Hesketh was over-ruled. Another witness named Ani Tepia was also examined, and was subjected to an extensive examination by both counsel. The witness also identified a number of the accused. The Court was then adjourned till 10 o'clock on the 9th inst.