RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TIMARU.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVII, Issue 968, 19 February 1862, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TIMARU.

Tuesday, February 11. (Before B. Woollcorabe, Esq., R.M. and Wm. Purnell, Esq., J.P.) William Boggis was summoned by Reihan, a Maori, for a debt of £8 10s. being the price of a bull and other property sold to him. The present proceedings arose out of a transaction which took place between the parties to this cause some months back, and which would appear to have involved a breach of the Arms Ordinance as well as something very like perjury on one side or the other. Some months since, Boggis the defendant applied to Reihan to purchase a bull belonging to the latter. He employed Kaho, a native, to negotiate the sale, and Adams a bullock driver to draw tip an agreement for the purchase of the bull for £7 which agreement does not appear to have been read over to Reihan. Instead of the cash Boggis offered a double barrelled gun which the Maori accepted and fetched away at night by special request. Solomon Piho, a Waimate chief, hearing of this breach of the Arms Ordinance, wrote a complaint about it to the Governor, which so far alarmed Boggis as to cause him repeatedly to apply to Reihan to restore the gun to him. Reihan agreed to do so if he were paid for his bxill. It would appear that the cash was not forthcoming, but some time after the gun was stolen from the Maori's house. Reihan's suspicions being aroused, from the fact that after the loss of the gun the defendant no longer applied for the gun but only for the gun case, he applied for a search warrant and the police found the gun in Boggis' house. The case Avas brought before the Resident Magistrate, when Boggis brought witnesses to swear t".iat the gun was only lent, and produced a Maori boy who they swore brought the gun to Boggis twenty four hours after he (the boy) had broken his leg, having to carry it a quarter of a mile. The Resident Magistrate gave a verdict for Boggis, the Maori loosing the gun and case, as well as the bull. Such was the previous state of the case out of which the present proceedings arose. It was now proved very clearly that Boggis did give the gun for the bull and the result therefore was a verdict against him for the amount claimed with damages. On the same day, Tuki,- a native, sued Boggis for the amount of a promissorj^ note given to him by the defendant. The note was drawn at one month after date, no date being inserted. On the plaintiff presenting the note to Boggis at his request, he refused to pay it and destroyed the document. The court gave a verdict for the full amount claimed with costs, but stated that they did not consider the destruction of the note a fitting case to be sent up to the Supreme Court. Tarawhatia, a Maori of Arowhenua, brought a claim for £20 against Charles Putnam for damage sustained by Kope, a native boy, being made drunk and forcibly removed by defendant while suffering from a broken leg. The court at the request of the defendant adjourned the case for a month to enable him to get legal assistance. We have reason to believe that these cases are reported correctly, and if so, it is evident that one of them at least, requires the intervention of the Crown Prosecutor, as it is clear that it involves a breach of the Arms Ordinance, and that on one side or the other there has been systematic perjury. As one case of importance has been remanded to enable the defendant to obtain legal assistance, the authorities are certainly morally bound to afford the same assistance to the Maori if justice is to be done.