R.M. COURT, ALEXANDRA

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1933, 25 November 1884, Page 3

R.M. COURT, ALEXANDRA

Fbiday.— [Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M., Captain Gascoignc, J.!\, and Te Rauhi, Native Assessor. ■ ADJOURNED CASE. Ratapu v. Wati Pumi, (Arthur Ormsby,) claim £31 8s for value and use of a lioise, and expenses incurred through loss of same. Mi' W. M. Hay appeared for plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. Mcs3ra Main waring and Quick were engaged as interpreteis. Ratapu, the plaintiff, sworn and examined by Mr Hay, deposed : I reside at Whatiwhatihoe. I know the horse, the cause of this action it is a light grey horse, with a dark mane and tail. I have not sold or parted with the horse, or authorised any one to do so. On the 29th of April I lost the horse ; it was taken out of my paddock. I saw a person riding it on the road and leading his own horse; it was Wati Pumi (Ormsby.) I sent Hemi Mohi to get it back. I have summonsed Wati Pumi for the return of my horse. If the horse is not returned to me, I want £8, the value of the horse. I claim also £9 15s, 5s a day from the 29th of April, when it was taken away. Mr Hay then proceeded to question the witness regarding other items in her claim, including solicitor's fees, £6 6s, interpreters' fees, expenses, messenger attending Te Awamntu for summons, and to Hamilton to consult solicitor, &c. • Mr O'Neill asked the court to at once rule if solicitors' fees between solicitor and client before action could be claimed, which he contended could not be done. If it were so, it would tend greatly to encourage litigation amongst the natives Mr Hay, on the contrary, contended that in the present case costs between solicitor and client before action weie recoverable. The court having consulted the authorities adduced by the learned gentlemen, decided that the costs were not recoverable, and struck out all the items but the claim for the value of the horse, £8, and the £9 15s for the los 9 of its use. Witness Ratapu cross-examined by MiO'Neill : lam the owner of the horse in dispute. The mother of it belonged to Takua. Before Takua left for Taranaki ahe arranged that the first foal of the mare belonged to Rora, the second one to me, and that is the horse in question. I was angry with Wati Pumi for taking my horse, hence my reason for charging £9 15s for its use. I never saw a pig brought to my place in May, 18S3. I was away. Tangi Moana got the pig. He said he got it from Wati Pumi on credit for £1. I never heard he gave the horse for the pig, or that a native runanga and Te Ngakau had decided that Wati Pumi was to have the horse. The paddock the horse was taken from belonged to me and Tangi Moana. Re-examined by Mr Hay : I never heard of or agreed to any ruininga, or that Te Ngakau should settle the dispute. Before going to Taranaki, Takua said the first foal was for Rora. The second, for me, was stolon, so I got the thiid, which is the horse in dispute. I asked Taugi Moana for it in the place ot the one lost. He agieed to yi\e it. He has not claimed it since, and it was know n by all the people to be my property. By the Court : Takua was a slave belonging to Tangi Moana. The horse could belong to Takua, although a slave. Takua was a wife of Tangi Moana, my husband. Hemi Mohi also gave evidence as to Wati Pumi taking away the horse. He had followed him to Alexandra ; had consulted Mr Wilkinson on the matter. He was sent by Ratapu, as he knew more of the ways of Europeans than her husband, Tangi Moana. Wati Pumi had refused to deliver him the horse. Rora, a native woman, generally corroborated the evidence ot Ratapu. Epiha also gave evidence. Tangi Moana, examined by Mr Hay, deposed the horse in dispute belonged to Ratapu. He saw Wati Pumi take the horse away. Wati did not ask for it. Why should he ? Cross-examined by Mr O'Neill : I did not sell Wati Piuni a horse m October, 1883. I did buy a pig fiom him for £1, which I afterwards paid to his wife. I never said a hoise was to be the payment for the pie. I never offered the £1 to Mrs Ormsby for the pig, saying the horse was a stolen one. The original owner of the mother of the horse was Tukua, a slave of mine. I had the fourth and other foals. They were for me and a daughter of Tukua's, a half-caste she left with me when I let her return to her friends in Taianaki. If you want to know all about the gill, she, like her mother, belonged to me, as my sla\e She ran away from me after her mother, because I wanted her for a wife. Her mother was my slave. I killed and ate her mother, and the gill also was my slave, and had no claim on the horses. Arthur Ormshy (Wati Pumi), the de fendant, was swoin, and deposed as follows : — Rinni Manuka, an old native of Ngatihana, went to my brother and lequested him to let him have a pig. My brother said he had none, and sent him to me. I said to him I did not wish to part with any of my pig 3, but as the old fellow was very persistent, I at last let him have one. I was handling a colt at the time, and Tangi Moana, looking at the colt, asked me if I would buy a colt. I said no. He then said he would give me a colfc for a pig, that as Rimu Manuka had now a pig to feed the people he also must have one to feed the people who were putting in his potatoes, or he would be ashamed. I did noc agicc to the exchange for somv time, but he described the lioise to mi- as a three-year-old colt, uubioken, saying he was au old man, and did not care for it, as he had no one to bieak it in for him. At last I agreed, he say ins; he would come in the morning aud show mu the horse. He to my su> prise kept his word, but I did not succeed in catching the horse he pointed out as being the one that belonged to him, as it was running with some of my own horses. I left it there, and being pleased with him said, I will now give you another pig. Some time after my brother and myself caught the horso, and found out it did not answer the description, as it had evidently been broken in, and was much older than Tangi Moana described itthree years. I went to him and told him so, but he persisted it was his horse, and told me to keep it and ride it about, and that if any one came to claim it to refer them to him. Some time after Tangi came to me again, and said I was right. He had given me the wrong horse, and wanted me to go at once to Whatiwhatihoe and see about it. I was ploughing at the time, and would not then go. Afterwards in my absence he came again, and induced my wife to take a £1 as payment for the pig, as he was in great trouble. I never heard the Ratapu 's name mentioned as being the owner of the horse until I received the summons. I have tried to get the matter settled by the natives themselves, and through Te Ngakau, and as I could get no redress, I took the horse to get the affair settled. Cross-examined by Mr Hay : I was not in any way suspicious about the affair. I have the horse now. I value it at £9. It is a better horse than I expected. Mr G. T. Wilkinson, sworn, deposed to Hemi Mohi coming to him and claiming the horse as his own property, and wanted a warrant to arrest Ormsby. Matilda Ormsby corroborated the evidence of the defendant. The Court retired to consider the verdict. On returning into court gave their decision as follows : — That Tangi Moana had no right to . dispose of the horse for a pig, which he had no doubt done ; that the horse must be returned to the owner, Ratapu, or the value claimed, £8 ; the court would allow no costs. «T, HUGHES AND KAUMANGA Y. HIRANGI " AND HONE TAMIHANA; plaim, £16 15s, for the recovery of a horse. Messrs Hay and O'Neill appeared far

the defendants, and Mr Mainwaring as interpreter. Like the preceding case, this was adjourned from last court for the attendance of a native assessor 1 to assist the bench. MrT. Gresham had conducted the case for the plaintiffs, and received their instructions, but did not act for them on the present occasion. Thomas Hughes, one of the plaintiffs, was sworn, and deposed as follows :— I [ have taken out a summons against William Hirangi for taking a horse out of my paddock belonging to my boy It 19 a black mare. On the 6th of August the horse was taken away. I was absent, but my wife saw them take it. When I returned home my wife said the horse was gone. I went to Hone Tamihana, and asked them if they had taken the horse away. They replied, yes. I asked them to retm n it, and they refused, saying I could do as I liked about it. I afterwards saw Hirangi in Alexandra, and gave him a copy ot this paper (produced.) He said it would be for me to prove it was my horse. The horse belongs to my son Tamihana, a little boy. Mr O'Neill here rose and called the attention of the court to the informality of the summons. The parties suing had no right to sue. The property sued for did not belong to them. He opined that the court could proceed no further with the «nse. The Court thought that the objection was fatal. Mr Gresham being present, in reply to the Court stated that when acting for the plaintiffs at the first stage of the case he had been instructed the plaintiffs were trustees for the child. Mr O'Neill, for defendants, read authoiities showing that the present plaintiffs had no right to sue as in their own nght, without authority. The Court therefore dismissed the case, costs £19 14s. The plaintiff, Hughes, asked the Bench how he was to proceed to can y on the case. The Court could not advise him, there were solicitors for that purpose. Hughes said he had engaged one, but it appeared that the summons was not taken out correctly. A mouth was allowed him to pay the costs, an instalment of £2 being paid into court. Several debt cases were heard and deteimined, and the Court lose.