RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1876, 15 July 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Friday. -(Before Mr H. W. Northcioit, R.M.) THE HANG API ICO BRIDGE CASE. Three natives named xespectively, Hanita, Maki, and Kauwhata, were charged with that they did unlawfully, maliciously and feloniously cut and break down a bridge running between the Pukekura and Puaboe blocks on the 2nd June last, such bridge being the propei ty of Mr E. B. Walker, and valued at £10. Mr Hay appealed foi the accused and Constable Brennan for the police. Constable Brennan in opening the case said the offence was committed as stated in the infouriation and was laid undei the Malicious Injury to Proporty Act, and proceeded under Section <>1 of that act. He would pioceed to call his evidence Edwin Barnes W.dkeiJ lessee of the Pukekuiaand Puahoe blocks deposed to having sent his s m with some of his men to cait some potatoes from Pukskuia to Monavale. The witness piocecdcd to give evidence as to tlio biidge in question, it ivai ovei the Mangapilco week, winch divided the abivo blockb of lanr l, and had been destroyed. He estimated the damage at £20. It had taken three days to lepair the budge. Had never given the accused authoiity to cut down the budge, The budge had been built by the natives, and lie (witness) had not paid anything, nor did he gi\e any assistance towaids putting it up. None of the natives weie on the block at the time the bridge wa> elected. Had given the nat \os notice to clear off pievir.us to tho election of the bridge. It took six nici fcui da\s to lepan the budge. Was aware that "pioceadmgs weie pend.ng to te.t his title to the l.u>d. The natives pantedp 'an ted the potatoes of winch he' was taking possession. Ho (witness) had ploughed the land, and the natives planted the potatoes, dve 1 „nd stored them. jW Const iblo I'.ronnan : The bridge wl en c t down was likely to last for Oyeais. llioaiton Walkei dtpo->ed to having gone to 1 tub >c to bung some potatoes in a diay, but was unable to do so, as the natives had dcstioycd the budge. Saw Kauw hata with an a\e cutting the stiingeis, and the other accused stripping tliu biidge and tin owing the n ate lal m the rnei. Told them to desist. Tne budge was cut down to prevent them closing. The potatoes were their property, the Shoiitt having handed t'leni over when they were in the ground. On a previous occasion the natives obstructed them when measiuin» a piece of ploughed land, and he considered the natives weie the aggressoison thatoccision. The natives had persistently assei ted their right to the land. By C uistable Brennan : Hanita and Mikme\ei laid claim to the land. Kauwlnta had laid claim. Jildwaid Tupp deposed to having seen Kauw hata cut down the budge on the 2nd June with an axe. The otlur two natives weio engaged in deploying the fascmed decking. Had heard the natives on seveial occasions asseit then nglit to the land. Had nevei heaid Maki or Hanita say the land belonged to them. Constable Brennan gave evidence as to theanestof the accusod. This concluded the case for the piosecution. His Woiship consideied there was. sufficient matter befoio him to constitute a prima facio case against the accused. Mr Hay expressed his intention of addressing a few remaiks to the bench on the insufficiency of the case, piior to the deposition being lead to the accused. Mr Hay then pioceeded. The first objection he would take was against the information. It had not been snppoited in any way by the evidence. The court was bound to take cognisance of anything bearing on the case which had been stated in evidence on any pievious occasion by Mr Walker. It was stated vi the information that thee people did unlawfully and feloniously bieak and cut down a ceitain budge acto<-s the Mangapiko cieek, such budge being the ,>iopoity of the infoimant Mr E. B. Walker. Mi Walker had swoin that ihe budge was his propei t> ; but he (Mr Hay) was in a position to pu.vc that it was not his propei ty. The bridge v\ as thepiopeity of John (iuco and Thomas Benn. Mi Walker in Ins evideucc on a piovious occasion when before that court pioved that tnis was so. Theiefoie the evidence of the piosecution was entuely in opposition to the infounat'on. He thought that the information should be dismissed on these grounds. His Worship said, the court had not the knowledge, that the biidge might have been conveyed to the infoimant in the meantime. Mr Hay proceeded. If these objections weie not sufficient he would go on to piove that the bridge was the pioperty of the natives. Mr Walkei had .stated he was the leaseholder of the blocks connected by this budge, The biidge ho apprehended was the propei ty of the freeholder. It could not be the piopeity of the leaseholder The lessons to Giice and Benn were the owners of the biidge. He considered this objection quite sufficient. He would quote for the information of the bench the law bearing on the subject. In all criminal cases there must be some criminal intention on the pait of accused. If a man acted bona fide in the assertion of any right he ceitainly would not be committing a crime. That had been ruled over and over again by the highest authorities in such matteis. In support of his contention he would quote fiotn "Paley on Convictions." In this case the accused had been acting bona fide in the assertion of aught. He would also show how that, in an indictable case, the same considerations moved the couit as in a summaiy trial. He would quote from Williamsons Australian Magistrate, 4th edition, page 783. The law in England and Australia was the same as in force in New Zealand, so far as malicious injury to propei ty was concerned. He would refer the bench to Russell on crimes, vol. 2, page 803. The act was not felonious where there was no malice in the intention. He would also draw attention to the remarkable inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution This should have a very considerable influence on the mind of the court. He conceived there was considerable untruth in the evidence. He would not say that this untruth was deliberate, but it showed all the same that the evidence was not to be lelied on. The value of the bridge had been estimated at £20. He had seen the bridge, and would be glad to take as many contracts for the same class of bridge at £4 a piece as he could get. His Worship was not prepared to rule on the points of lavy raised. He had taken notice of these points, and would give his decision next court day, eniarging the prisoners' bail in the meantime. If die points raised were correct there would be no .option but to discharge the accused, otherwise they would be put on their defence.