THE MAUNGATAUTAAI IMBROGLIO.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2170, 5 June 1886, Page 2

THE MAUNGATAUTAAI IMBROGLIO.

At the R.M. Court, Te Awamutu, on Thursday, bef< ra Messrs Rutherford and J. H. Mandeno .J.P., Natl)aniel Harvey was charged again as in the former case, with mjuriug a verandah to the extent of £5, the property of Hnri Tauariki, as trustee for certain minors. Nathaniel Harvey, Arthur Simpson, Chailes Beale, and Huirama Puko, were charged on the information of Hori Tanariki with having on the 11th May, 188<>, unlawfully and maliciouHly begun t<i pull down and cever a fixture, t<> wit, a dwelling house erected upon land belonging to Hori Tauariki and others a.s timteu.s for cert.iin minors, to the value of £.">. Charles Beale, for whom Mr Hay- appeared, Andrew Kay, Scotch Jim, Nathaniel Harvey, Arthur Simpson, Te Puke Huiramu, Mnnri Ohoho, Neho Huirntna, Winf Kerei, Witnata Pao Pao, and Wireinu Htiirama, were charged on the information of Hori Tauariki, as trustee for certain minors, with having on the 12th day of May, 1880, unlawfully and maliciously damaged, by removing, a dwelling house, to the extent of £25. There was iio appearance of Simpson or Scotch Jim. The last case, on the application of Mr Hay, was taken for heaving first so as to allow witnesses to return to their homes, which were at a distance. In the other case* no such inconvenience would be incurred. He also contended that in this case Puke was alone responsible, as the other* charged jointly with him were only acting as servants in doing what they did. It was a matter of right, and they had no right to assert, they were simply acting under Puke's orderi. Thn court directed the interpreter to ask Te Puke if ho were willing to take the responsibility on himself. To this Te Puke replied that he was. The prosecutor also agreed to this, and Mr J. M. Fra«er. who acted as agent for the latter, rose to address the court, but Mr Kay objected to his doing so, as he was not a solicitor. Mr Hay, personally, had no objection to Mr Kraser addressing the court in explanation. Puke withdrew his assent to being the only defendant, but was willing that the charge against Charles Beale should be withdrawn, which was done. Prosecutor asked the court what should bo done in the case of ° Scotch Jim." whu, although served with a summons, aid not appear. The court ruled that the man's objection to appear on the grounds that "Scotch Jim wan not his name was good. Prosecutor said he could not fiud out the man's proper name. Edward Hammond, faworn, deposed that he was Registrar of the Native Lands Court for the Auckland district. At this stage the court informed the prosecutor that as a question of title was involved they would not proceed with the case, as they had no jurisdiction. Our correspondent writes : — One strange feature in this case is that Wiinata Pao Pao. one of the defendants, is also a cotrustee with Hori Tauariki the, prosecutor, and if what I have been told is correct, the prosecutor is interested with Puke, the principal defendant, in the Otautahancra block. It is stated that when the first survey was made the house in question stood on Puke's land, but the latest survey placed the boundary line in a different place. This as far as I can learn led to the removal of the house: hence the trouble. Mr X Hammond was brought up from Auckland to give evidence as to grants, Sec. It is very likely that this case is only a means to an end. Tiie question of title is opened as a lever to bring about a re-hear-ing of the whole Maungatautari case over again. TheR.M. not b°ing present, the justices decided they had no jurisdiction. The case is accordingly held ov« for the present, and if the prosecutor Una not had enough of it, fresh summonses will have to be issued, whon it will probably come on for hearing at the next regular court.