RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1642, 13 January 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Wednesday. — (Before Mr Nortlicroft, R.M.!.'a»d Mr Tljoa. Wells, J.P.) ,

The Native Ejectment Case. Thk hearing of this case was continued on Wednesday N ihorni'ng.' ' ' .' The cross-examination of the native witness,' Tupia, was proceeded with. This witness in some respects corroborated the evidence of previous , witnesses. Among those present, at, Maugapiko she did not see either Messrs Grice, Grace, or M. Stubbing doing anything in the way of destroying buildings or fences. From ■what she saw, * she believed had the womeii not struggled With the Europeans for tlie spades, they (the Europeans) would not have interfered with them. Though Messrs Grice, Grace and Stubbing did not assist in the work of destruction, still, they were near enough to render assistance to the Europeans if called upon to do so. They did not, however, as far as she could remember, endeavour to make the others desist from the work of destruction.

A Scene in Court. The witness, Hori Puao, was re-called by Mr Hesketh and re-examined, for the purpo&c of showing, if possible, that falso testimony had been given. He Would &ho\\ f by this witness that instead <& the rent being in arrears, it was acHi^lly over-paid. The evidence which would bo produced to show this, consisted of two cheques. Before re-examination, the witness was requested to sign his name on a piece of paper, whicii he did. He was then asked if he had ever gone by the name of Hori Karaka since 1877, in which year he had deposed to having received the rent last. The witness denied most strongly having gone by that name, or ever having signed it since that time. He was then asked if he had not received lent in 18S1, to which ho replied he had applied for rent in that year, but did not get any. A cheque was then shown the witness, dated Feb. 3rd, ISSI. On being asked had he ever seen that cheque before, he replied lie had not. (The cheque was in favour of Hori Karaka, and was endorsed with that name.) The witness was then asked to look at the endorsement and see whether it was his signatuie. The &ight of the signature, winch he had not hitherto noticed, apparently took him by surprise. His surprise having become manifest, the witness began wiping the perspiiation oil his forehead with one hand, and after the lapse of a few minutes wiped for a time with the other hand. Another long look at the signature followed, the amazement of the witness gradually increasing. Then he began to take oft' his coat, and proceeded so tar as to take his left arm out. Leaning on his elbow he again studiously scanned the signature. After turning the cheque over and over a few times, and having looked more deeply into the signature than ever, Ins unfeigned astonishment creating gieat miith in Court, the warmth of the situation necessitated his taking the other arm out of the coat. No answer having been foitheoming, he was requested to look at the signatuie on the block of the cheque, and see if lie could recognise tlmt without any hesitation. After <i veiy long and amusing pause the witness finally admitted that both signatuies weie his handwriting, thus showing lie had not only received rent in 18S1, but that lie had likewise used the name Kaiaka in that year. To make the mattei moie certain the Bench caused the question to be put to the witness whethei his hand wrote both signatures, the one on the back of the cheque, and the one on the block, and to this he replied he iiad written them both. The signatuies ha\ ing been admitted a comparison with the signature wiitten on the f'ouit table was thought unnecessary. Mr Hesketh, in addicting the Court, said he had a point which he desiicd to bring forcibly under the notice of the Bench. He was not going to ti averse the same giound as when he addiessed the Court before on the points raised by the prosecution. He had considered the evidence of Hnri Puao \ery cat chilly, and it could not lie denied that his evidence or statements disclosed a most shocking state of things. He would submit that this witness had placed himself in such a position that the Court could not for one minute give any consideititiou to his evidence. They must disbelieve his e\idenee in eveiy respect — not partly, but in tuln. It Avas wholly impossible to lcly on his statements. He had tried in fact to piactiec a piece ot gross deception. By Ins action in going and squatting on the land, and denying lie had ever leceived any runt fiom the lessees he had thought to establish a colour of title to the land. If a i\ itness is detected in a scheme which was 01 iginally intended to impose upon and mislead the Court, it was for the Bench to consider whether his statements throughout should not be wholly disreg.uded. He had also in the most mateiial points upon which he was called to give testimony contradicted himself. When Jiist called lie stated the last rent ho had lecehed was in May. 1577. On being recalled, he had coutiadicted himself on this point. He next states the last application ho made for rent was in 1879, but on being recalled he admitted having applied in 18S1, but did not get any. JTo had also told them that day something about -Cl 7 which he had received, but, strange to say, during his pi e\ious examination he had carefully refrained from referring to this payment. The witness had heard since the last time he was in the witnessbox that he was likely to be rcenlled, and asked something about a cheque for £'2Q which he had leceived. He had also denied e\ei having authoiised Mere Whakatutu to receive his lent in 1877. The cheque for £17 which the witness Hori had spoken of had been ptoduced in Court, and it boie Mete Whakatutii's •signature. With legard to the. cheque for £2, the witness hud again misled the Court. He denied ever having seen the cheque befoie. But, on being asked to sign his name on a piece of paper, and on comparing one signature w ith the othci — that on the paper with that on the cheque, he got somewhat bewildered. In fact, so bewildered had he got, ho was obliged to take off his coat to counteract the warmth of his astonishment. After long consideration, he had come forth with the admission that the signature on the back of ; the cheque was his, and that the cheque must therefore have passed through his hands. — His Worship the R.M. here remarked that the Bench had carefully compared the signature on the piece of paper with the signature on the cheque, and there was not the slightest resemblance between them.— Mr Hesketh replied that the Similarity or the non-similarity between Jt\\Q two signatures had nothing to do with the matter at all ; he was going on 1 the man's own admission. He merely asked him to write his name on the piece of paper to try and make him admit what he knew to be a fact. The man had admitted , Jiis signature, he had said it was his, and what more proof could they have beyond the man's own admission ? And were they now in the face of "that admission to tell the witness the signature was not his ? Why the conclusion was purely and simply ludicrous. Turning now to another point of the case. If Mr Walker, he contended, had a right to enter on the land, those who entered with him, unless they took part in the taking down of the fences could not come within the scope of the law ; and by the evidence for the prosecution it had only been shown that only about eight of , the thirty-three accused, took part in the •pulling clown' of,' the 1 fences. Had Mr WalkeV entered on the 'land without a ri^ht'jtheu true enough .those who followed' him' there 'were' 1 wrdng-^ doers. It had been set " forth 'in the indictment, thaty the natives had. 'been "seized in ''their 1 ''demesne 'as (a 4 ( a 4 feej" but „ this_w.a&, ,nQJLj3O,^,lae'caiiBji [ \ tb'e&. had no title t to the land ; they were not, in",freeholcl i tibssesg'iqn/anct' they* rhad V.ad,nn'tted tbqJenaeof others, A&att 1 ? had ? coib' pequenfly no right w the to»<l I< ttitrtn #$•/ -H?*!f Xl •till '-/a 5 . „v/HiiTU'/^, J

the expiration of that lea^e v To legally enter upon the land tlfey must be either freeholders or leaseholders ; and in this case the possession under either head had not been pi'oved. Whenever theac natives entered upon the land in 1877, Mr Walker could have taken an action against them for forcible entry. MiWalker had never been- out of possession from the time he entered, and thus they had entered upon him. How could he (Walker) be guilty of entry when he had never been off the land. The natives had also failed to establish a right of reentry. Again, it was set forth in the indictment that the natives were expelled from the land, bub no evidence had been adduced to show that there was any expulsion whatever. They were never turned off the land. The charge, he submitted, should have been of an entirely different character. In conclusion, he submitted that the prosecution had entirely failed, and that, consequently, the Court should not call upon them for any answer. On the other hand, if the bench thought a case had been established, and would determine to go on with the c ise, he would tell them what his defence would consist of. Mr Hesketh then submitted to the Court a paper consisting of the line of defence lie was about to pursue. The Court was then adjourned till 10 o'clock on Thursday morning.