RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Tuesday.-(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1656, 15 February 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Tuesday.-(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

The Ngatikawhata Ejectment Cases. Second Charge. Thk second charge of forcible entry against Mr 15. B. Walker and four othcis came on for hearing on Tuesday last. The following is the information :— 'J he information and complaint of Tapa Te Whata, of Mangapiko, who saith that Edwin Baines Walker, Charles Walker, and Thornton Walker, all of Monavale, near Cambridge, John Griee, of llotorangi, and William Henry Grace, of Cambridge, at the Mangapiko native settlement, on the block of land known as 1 Jtekura, on the 17th Nov., 1882, did and with strong hand enter into Certain messuage consti noted of wood and raupo with the appurtenances there situate, of which one Hori l'uao and Ani Whata wcie then seized in their demesne .is of foe as tenants in common with other \ ersons ; and of which the said Tapa te Whata was then in peaceable pobscssion under the said Hoii L'uao and Ani Whata ; and the said Tapa to Whata from the peaceable possession of the said messuage with the appurtenances aforesaid forcibly, and with strong hand, unlawfully did expcll, and put out, contrary to the form of statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. Mr Hay appeared for the prosecution. Mr Walker, on behalf of the accused, stated they had no intention of offering any defence, and would therefoie be unrepresented by counsel. Mr Grace then stated that it was generally undcistood that the charge against the 33 defendants was to be brought on for hearing this morning, and the course of proceeding pursued by MiHay was highly improper, and doubtless done for the purpose of causing annoyance to all pal ties concerned. Mr E. B. Walker had telegiaphed to Mr Hay yesterday, asking him to bring on the assault case to-day, and Mr Hay had replied that he could not do so, but that the case with the large number of defendants must proceed. Many of the defendants had to come from a long distance, and it was absolutely cruel to bring them theie and 'then refuse to pioceed with their case. llc was aware that the pi osecntion ■was actuated by no other than vindictive motives. Mr Giice made a similar speech, accusing Mr Hay of acting maliciously throughout. Mr Hay, in reply, denied being actuated by any but feelings of friendliness to the accused. His clients bore no antipathy or malice to the accused. By good f oi tune lie happened to have with him the tolegiam leceived by Mr Walker, and his telegram copy book with the answ er. The telegram was as follows :—: — "You Mill oblige by bunging assault case on Hist. Iteply. — E. 33. Walker." The reply was: "Sorry I am not propi epai cd to go on ■w ith assault case, othci - wise would gladly oblige. — W. M. Hay.' 1 The older for healing the cases had been repeatedly before the Couit, when he had always stated publicly aud in the Court that Tapa te Whata 's forcible entry case, in which there weie only five defendants, would be the next one taken, and that then the cases would be taken in the following order : — Riot, six defendants ; assault, one defendant ; malicious injuiy to piopeity, 33 defendants. He could call upon the Court, Mr Hesketh, Mr Whitaker and others to substantiate this statement. He believed the Court had taken a note of the order of the cases. Both Mr Giace and Mr Guce would do well in futuic to fully infoun themselves of the facts befoic coining into Com t with statements which were absolutely groundless and false, and bore the direct impress of ill-feeling. Mr Noithcioft stated that his impiession was that Mr Hay was light, and that it had been recorded by him and Col. Lyou when sitting on the Bench that Tapa te Whata's case with five defendants would be taken on the 13th inst. Later in the dny Mr Dyer, who acted as solicitor for the accused.on afoinuT occasion, came into Court, and His Worship publicly asked him concerning arrangement for he«u ing the cases, and he confirmed what had bpen said by Mr Hay and by His Woiship. Before entering upon tlic case, His Woiship asked "Mr Hay it he did not think the ends of justice would bo met by the case which had alieady been committed to the Supreme Court, and asked him would it nob be better to withdraw thechciige before the Com t as well as the others pending. Mr Hay icplied he was acting under instructions, and after what • had just been said by Messrs Grace and (Jrice, which was untrue, he declined to take any discietion. He would proceed with the cases as on the list. His Woibliip remaiked that of cour&c he was bound to hear any cases brought befoie him. Mr Hay then piocecded to address the Court on the charge. T. G. Sandes, survej or, who was the first witness called, gave evidence as to the plan of the Pukekura native settlement. Hori Puao was ne\t called, and gave evidence as to the visit of Mr Walker and party to the Mangapiko native settlement on the 17th November, 1882, and the destruction by them of the whare of the informant Tapa te Whata. Ani Whata gave similar evidence, corroborating the previous witness as to the visit of the pakehas, aud the destruction of the whare. Another native witness was called, whose evidence was similar to that of the two previous witnesses, j^k The Court then adjourned until 10 the following morning, the accused released on their own recognisances to appear.