THE KATUTU PERJURY Mr Northcroft's Explanation.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1653, 8 February 1883, Page 2

THE KATUTU PERJURY Mr Northcroft's Explanation.

This case, remanded from Friday last, was tafcom up ,01^ Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, before ]\|r j Searanclce 'aiid Col./ Lyon, J.P., whence prisonerWhakatutu' was again placed/in' the clock l . ' Mr F. A. Wlritaker appeared for the prosecution, and Mr W. M. Hay f ; or the defence. ' ' l ' ' ' ' " Mr H. W. .Northcroft was the first witness called. Before entering on his evidence Mr Northcroft said he had a statement to make to the Court relative to his noii-upp@tf!aQ£&| QU[ Friday last, for which, day.he had been "subpoenaed to attend; j $&[then baJnUpd fosie leferk/ of tlie' Court the following Written * statement:— i < >< h ',!,'( \f I' i Your Worships, before being sworn I should 1 like>t6' make somet explanation ias . to my not appearing here on the 2nd inst., for itf'tbe h&\Uspapenf ha\!oir;eported correctly I think something transpired then that in justice to( myself , and, [the Bench demands explanation. You will then be able to see that though discourtesy may have been shown to the Bench it was not by myself. The facts are as follows :— I was to at-tend-this,Court on. the 20th January, and. diil so 1 .. The prisoner Was thin remanded to the 27th ) between the 20th~ aiul 27t1i January 1 was'subpcena'ed'bythe'lea'rned council conducting this prosecution to attend the Supreme, Courj; ( as, a, witness, as shown by .the lejirtXjr attached [m. I then wrote to the Bench (a copy of my letter attached) informing them of -the fact 'and 'sent it through the clerk .of^this Court' to 'insure > its ! ' pro'mpb delivery; I After posting the letter to -the., Bench 1 ; saw the learned, counsel for; the prosecuf' tion, who informed . me' he-/ had arranged for this case to be heard on the 29th January, and as IJ <Sdtdd .not- aftteMfhe would go on with ih us .far <as he coiilcl, and would on my return to the district; calt'on'-nid tp' prodncevthe .depositions. From that date, till Thursday/the Ist ins,t. I received no notice or intimation "as , to when I should be required " to attend here. At about 1 pirn, on' Thursday, tl/c Ist ins ( t., I,received ! tl)e'attadhedtele'gfatri (B) dated the 31st ult. from 'the counsel, but as you will perceive 'it 'was nojfc , received by the telegraph department in,, Auckland till 3.t>(5 p.m.-'^d-dressed ,'W nic afe ' tliet ' ' Jriii^reme ' ' CoUrt where I half, been in attendance' up to 4.50 arid it; 'did not rea'dh nic till ' I' ' p'.'m. on Thursday. ,On receipt of thjs telegram I replied to'^^eafn^eoMilael by wire (copy attached},' and it will be seen that at thii'time' I'l-ecelVedhis-telegraml-rwas in Aucliland and could notipossibly be in Cairibrldge ■till' the day lifter the case., was brought befoi'e the Bench. ! ! It would appear the prisoner was remanded on the •29fch jitnWaJry l WMe&ndThft&O&h'd it was than, known ,J should be at the •SdprbnjejjDduot on « TucsdaJjanH greater "par* of \VecTnesday, yet* no step« > .<Sp'peXr ri 'foll'BayeAJJ^djiTlt(ak?hT«nti l Weilnesday afternoon by whosoever's duty it M r as to inform -me that I should be lequired here with tlie depositions on, the 2nd inst. My/reaspu for suggesting^ I this day (Tuesday) in'iny reply ( to the' learned co'uns'er\vats'tha't"rc'6uld not p'6s-| sibly return toth^'district''before • (Friday' i afternoon, 'noc i^eaoh Cambridge r befpee 1 that night. Saturday afternoon is the only time the clerk of the Court' is "enabled #> leave tlie^office, and'a long indictable case is sure to take the- twhole day. Monday I had appointed at request of both the learned counsel appearing in this case to give judgment in Hamilton at 10 a.m. in the case Iharaira v. Walker, therefore thought this would be the most suitable day/ knowing, as I did the prisoner was out on bail, and rei collecting the, f Conversation/ )>vith?the learned counsel that he would take my evidence on, my return. I did not Inform 1 this Ben'cli I could' riot be iii Cambridge on the 2nd inst., because I thought whosever fault'it.jtaS %\)S$ i had not received sufficient notice would see that np ono was inconvenienced, and that a formal remand would take place. Other i (explan»tion%j;fol}o,tyed which showed that Mr Iforthcroft was in no way to blame in the matter. The Bench considered that there had been a mis-iindej-shinding throughout, jifid the least vskia ot tHelmltter thoT)|tjieivT^ fI M i ~""Th:e"evidonte of MrNorthorofirwenl to show that the prisoner Whakatutu had given evideivslj#c&exhi]n in the recent ease of forcible entry preferred by Anji Whata and Hpri Puao against E. B. Walker and others : "and that the oath had been duly administered. The wittaeSs then handed .in tHerde^osijSons-.iu the case to the Court, and Whaka-t'itnja evidence was then read over. An inter' esting discussion here" took ptooo betweeh counsel on the matter of whether or not |!»»?MJ«n^nt6^U^|ir r |ii i? t|i% f inf9rmation slianKi be in Maori instead of English, Mr Hay contending that the prisoner was charged in the informatioii wifli .having niade certain statements which. "aIW in trfsiA& ti'H&ffl di'ip. Maori. , The prisoner could not possibly have made. 'suc.h statements as tie could not speak English, and, cons 4. ,quently, what was, set forth in the m■'forttfatiott'was^miereryHan ifiteVpro^tic|n of what was actually sa.i4 v The quei-'i J troif/ ! Hsw^fe^ma<sc2'i&ttW;%4y l S«S&^fel^ln his .opinion the evidence of -the prisoner wasTtfdtlttate'Halftoi tWe4s«iue.^ If "flid lJ not, in the sliigttesttrinflueuce his decision tequeBted!^ u <»unsel*on'b'oth. v 'sides to eic-f ; pfes^|h*opinfofe?ivitll|the iJlfe^flßhßrte)!- ' i>ing tl^e fbi'c|ble>ra^j^a^,'i|Jii*|'fleslJJßj'h.' <

decision of the SuprenwaqQart, nor did X he j know that Mr Hesfaah ammwwod'--'^Charles Chittyt Mwfysvs*k Court, itwi t.hft intprnreters. xne witness waa onfthe following* nftioiog»b& - LY ESTKRDAY. anfi gave evidence a^t&th»>iuterpretation en )3s-exainmed"^'^ftr^P'3^ i "^^ >^ ll " e^y^ cokld not say theT>ettWt<A«>rds in the wiisverysfflfilaYßS WVAW $3^ * (Patrick Clarke, constable in the Armed me into custody and searching or tne acciised. The paper p&ffl&Kl in Court was iS^aS^Wat^^an, was ailed but ,dyl -not appear. Mr Hay si ated'* { sW d Was. * i ffl,o JaHJ J Jw|i/r cone to consult a Maori womalifi. at Tapapa^'Mff'WhitakdfaitettWea to the importance of .tJiis person^ evidence. If Mr Hay woftlcf aflmil! tnatftfieyVitnesß (Ani Whata) had r made pertain # statenients at the preliminary enquiry 111 the forcible entry, tba difficulty cottld be gofc over." ' x I [ |HoriPn W i ffW9^»e^ffid.rfajß*./ that Ani was not unwell, but that her cliil'd -was 'unwell Jut i J •/(! r>. r >nc J>K;i<At I Af,teiW,«n,e #>#n.,Mr s&ftmflj/ would admit what had been sain, aim [whiehflfasfcpn T the> depQaitigns,. -by Ji.ni ~ Whata ami 1 - HoriTPuao^ori^a previous! ojecasion. 'UTMXUM " TlierßeSichcdjd^o^^^gig t^ynttn ojf witness' childavas an exbufe for her disobeying the ordel- of WCdurt | Mr Hay then gave a'\('ritten admission tptheeffectcfchatrfchel 3,epQ3^iPnsy9 f Ani Whata and Hovi Puao in the forcible onjbry cas:e contained a,- correct statemei}<|^ o^f what these witnesses had stated uponj dath at thefp^ji/nvj^ry.^n^jjgj^ato flic forcible entry'case. i W.H. GraW^'ds called/ and" deposed > f that he first sa\>' Jkjr Walker and Whakatntu, thtkccu'sed/at'Man^pilfo on'De^. 3, 1881 . FrHfti' l theW«MP 'Walker,?' Mr>. > Grice and he (witness) went to Waikankaa, when tlie followjflr them,, , Messr3 n Walker and Grice* afl«» timseif { feitSed 1 WivlkvtfM th'eO.Httel 1 place, in which, there^'were^t number of natives, including T How r^lV 0^ r Walker told witness to ' tell'- Hori Puao they; .come; I^o jpay f him. jhi^j Y el tf'i Hori told tliem to settle the accoujtf with Wsha/^MtIU ffis rent. Whakatutu was called and came and sat at'l tlib' /; dodr)«ui of Hori Puao. As Hori had stated, he did not wish the're'ht^aidim'the' wb'are leasts the JNgatikawhata would see, they asked Wnrtk'aiiitii'wliere'flieyfs-hould.' pay WmJ the rent, aiid l he replied' s theyi 1 should gefi. down to the ! Eu'roipeah l 'caWK^ villere the y accordingly went. Whakatutuknew what they were going A to'f 'the iii European cam.pfoit.'/?fo:)l)usiness was done here, 'but'instcad they all procecde^^toj^pjipliaugi. There they entered, and, being jwet, they had one glass of whisky eacln ; eha»ge.d thei^.clpjthfes^and had BQipe|;hin| t to eat. They .then, proceeded to business, Vhar fc- w^to^«m^^ ' should take &2tf r BH o fiflWint of Hori iPuao's rent, and £2^ oh' bbehal f of Hiis 'wife's rent. Mr Grice theu counted out j fifty so vereigtfc to Whakatfiitif, whicMi/ latter, .took, and .recounted. The mpftey .ivas'thekVuiriira ba*afirf-takfih^yfiiW-sion of by pVisoner, 'Who signed {^receipt ; for the same.-., Prisoner,, ms then perfectly sober, having only had one glass of whisky up to that time. Prisoner sug- ■ gested the money should be put in the bank in (he names of two persons, him> 1 self and Mr Walker. Mr Walker, lipw.-* ' ever, declined, and on a further suggestion it was agreed to place it on interest as a fixed deposit in the name of accused ami wituosa. '-! ,; ttroityjiandefl thß money to witness, and he (Mr Grace) gave him a receipt for the money. (Receipt produced ami identified). The money was /placed Jn bank. After the business was' done accused helped himself to a little whisky. He then asked Mr Grico for 10s and some tobacco, which he got. On leaving the house the. accused was sober. , , r " 'The' witness was submitted to' a* ci&niexamination by Mr Hay. Had nerSr e'n'toredMiit6 ! a'ri arrangeinontyv^itli'Wblkyr for the purchas'e 1 of ! natiye interests in the ,Puk;ek lira ,]^lock. jHis engagement with, Mr Wal^P wa^co^'ei|dea ! vpu r to jjjfci rid of anuuilber^pf^.^ua^ting nkiives 6ft" t)ie .Vlpck. i ' „" „ '" „ "" ",' .was, ?iext called, i and'"cpr,V9boi;a£ed tl^e'j, evu\e'nce of tlie ■preVrous witness.' Relative to' (Vnakatiitu gptjiirig drunk, he had only, o^ne,, drink' when' he came into the house at Rotbrahgi, and one when he went,aw,ay. It was a habit a^RotrOrangi to give evpry person a.druik who. called. , '- ' ,' . '", , ' j ' „ *Th«| evulpnce or E. B. Walker, ,tfye informant, and Alirce other,' witnesses Wft^r taken in .support of tlie allegations setfor,th in the information^ pnd' the, case fq^tJiciH-osecutipn cftajd. „^;., l ." n n I | • ,j\^ Hay, in | addres.Bjngthe ( court, said ljc^iad bee'nj ab'ifpd^jntl^ provecl prispn e» .had , 'fiiftde' i\} c ' i a'lie ' ' sfiabements alleged,' but tlie question fpr'ljl/e coiVrtl '^o determj^q { now )vas, . whether ''what"'fli& witness jhajcl {^evidence was material to the issue. The, case was, then adjourned until II ' 6'cfock this Wiling. ' ! -* ' | /