RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3529, 30 October 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before Captain Preecc, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Thomas, an old man, who apappeared in tbe dock decorated with a black eye, pleaded guilty to having been drunk in Napier on Saturday, and was fined 5s and costs, with the alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment with hard labor. Prisoner: Would your Worship not forgive for this time? Thomas Mansfield pleaded guilty to having been drunk at Port Ahuriri on Saturday, and was fined 10s ami costs, or iv default 48 hours' imprisonment with hard labor. FURIOUS RIDING. j Firipi Make (a native) was charged \

with having ridden a horse furiously along ■, the Omahu-road, at Hastings, on Septem- k, ber 20tb. The aceueed admitted the f> offence, and was fined £1 and costs, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment. THREATENING BEHAVIOUR. Hemi Putara was charged, on the information of Constable Tillers, with having made use of threatening behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned on tbe racecourse at Hastings on October 3rd. Mr Lee appeared for the accused, and pleaded not guilty. Edmund Villers, police constable, identified the accused as one of the personhe had seen on the racecourse on the 3rd instant. Witness' attention was called to an alterca'ion that was going on between the booths, and be saw the accused and another native fighting each other. There was a crowd of about one hundred present, both natives and Europeans. The accused appeared to be the worse of drink. After witness came upon the scene the fighting ceased. There was no one arrested during the scuffle. By Mr Lee: It took about five minutes to get through the crowd to where the riant was going on. There were seven or eight natives engaged in the scuffle. The accused was close up to another native, aud was striking him. Witness bad never seen the other native . before, but had frequently seen the ac- f cused. Knew him by the name of " Sam." The " threatening behaviour " the accused made use of was in striking another native. # "* Constable Harvey gave corroborative evidence as to seeing the accused in the act of striking another native on the day in qaestion. Witness did not remember seeing Constable Tillers on the spot at time. There were hundreds of people on the ground. None of the white men that witness saw were interfering. By Inspector Scully: There were several rows of a similar description going ou the same day. Reihana, a native constable stationed at Wai-o-biki, deposed to seeing a row going on at the races on the date stated above. He saw the accused fighting with a pakeha, also with a Maori. Witness was unable, owing to the crowd, to identify the native with whom the accused was fighting. By Mr Lee : Witness gave information about the row one day soon after. Did not know wby the information was not laid earlier than the 14th October. Witness got into the middle of the crowd where the row was going on. Some of the European policemen were there also. The pakeha was a young man. Witness did not know his name. It was after the fight with the pakeha that the accused was fighting with the Maori. Witness got within a very few yards of pugilists, He did not know the other native before, and therefore could not indentify him. This closed the case for the tion. ? Mr Lee contended that the information must fall through. An information was laid against his client for " threatening behaviour," and not for committing an assault. The several witnesses that had been examined had given evidence of assault only, and not one word had come out to prove that the accused was guilty of any threatening behaviour, according to the interpretation of the Statute. All the witnesses, too, had given evidence of totally different occurrences, as was apparent from their stories of what took place. There had been a number of distinct rows, and it was not by any means clear that the entire evidence related to any one of these rows only. In any case the information was undoubtedly bad, there being nothing adduced to prove that the defendant had been guilty of any threatening behaviour whatever calculated to lead to a breach ef tbe peace. If the defendant was assaulted in a crowd he had a perfect right to defend himself, but because he had the misfortune to be in the middle of a disorderly mob was no reason why he should be charged with " threatening behaviour." His Worship said he considered there was evidence of threatening behaviour, and he would bear any witnesses on the other side. Mr Lee submitted that he was not required to call any witnesses, and he would refuse to do so. The charge was not substantiated, and he should not ~y therefore be put to the trouble of suply- ■ ing information to the police. If a conviction were recorded he (Mr Lee) would make an immediate application to have it quashed. Pakd Tenaru was similarly charged by the same imformant. The accused was undefended, and pleaded not guilty. The evidence was much the same in many respects to that taken in the previous case. Moko Umirangi pleaded guilty to a similar charge, also preferred by the same informant. Alexander Morrison charged with having on the same date used threatening behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned on tbe Hastings race? course, was defended by Mr Lascelles, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Lascelles called attention to the fact that tbe summons charged his client with having made use of the alleged threatening behaviour on the sth of October, and not on the 3rd. He had no objection to allow the case to go on, but he might have occasion to refer at a later stage of tbe proceedings to the fact that he bad two witnesses present to prove that the defendant was in Napier on the sth, and that he was asked to answer to an offence alleged to havejtaken L place on the latter date. It was a re-_ makable thing that not only was the charge preferred for tbe wrong date, but fourteen days were allowed to elapse from the time the alleged offence took place until the information was laid, and then fourteen days more before tbe defen- ~Y dant was called upon to answer the charge. f Constable Villers gave evidence to the effect that he saw the defendant knock a native down, and a row took place immediately afterwards. Some friends of the defendant cave and took him away. It was then about 3 o'clock. By Mr Lascelles : That was all witness saw. He could not say whether the defendant received any provocation, and knew nothing of what had happened previously. Witness had not since seen the native who was struck. It was in consequence of defendant's conduct that the row commenced. Witness was not sure at what hour it took place. It was not close upon 5 o'clock. It might have been at 4 o'clock, or perhaps 4.30. Mr Lascelles said he could not enter into the defence in this case without directing attention to the extraordinary fact that not a single witness except the police bad been called to give evidence. There had been between two and three hundred persons on that portion of tbe racecourse where the row took place, yet not one of them was called in to say a word about the disturbance. Again, he might well repeat what his learned friend, Mr Lee, had stated in the opening case, namely, that there was not one word of evidence adducted to prove that threatening behaviour whereby a breach iof the peace was occasioned had been

used by the defendant. Constable Pickering had stated that when bespoke to the defendant the latter replied that a native had struck him, and he wished to retaliate. Who, then, wasguilty of threatening behaviour ? Why, the native who committed the assault. Certainly it could not be the man who was assaulted. He (Mr Lascelles) would respectfully invite His Worship to read the Act, with the context, under which the information was laid, and he would see that it had nothing whatever to do with assaults, or anything of that sort. It was a vagrancy Act only. He had no hesitation in affirming that the constable who laid the present information bad never seen a blow struck at all. The other two witnesses had not, and tbey admitted it. According to Constable Villers' evidence he saw a native knocked down by the accused, and instead of charging bira with an assault he lays an information for "threatening behaviour," notwithstanding that there was not one syllable of evidence of a breach of the peace having been committed after the blow was struck. Why, tbe looseness of tbe whole information was apparent upon the face of it, while the chief evidence was no better. First, the offence took place at 3 o'clock, then at 4 o'clock, and then at 4 30, and ultimately the informant admitted that he did not know at what hour it took place. Mr Lascelles then called three witnesses, who deposed that they had been with the accused having a drink prior to returning from the racecourse to Napier, and, when coming away from the booth, a native came behind Morrison and struck him a heavy blow on the head and knocked him down. Morrison attempted to retaliate, but was prevented by the witnesses, who held bim and conveyed him off tbe ground. Defendant never had an opportunity to strike back. William Clements, who was also defended by Mr Lascelles, pleaded not guilty to a similar charge preferred by Constable Lawless. Constable Pickering deposed that, after the scuffle between the defendant in the last case and the Maori, the defendant in the present case came up and urged them on to fight. By Mr Lascelles: Some of those present were holding Morrison back, but Clements was urging them on to fight. Sergeant Burtenshaw deposed to having seen the defendant, and having heard him singing out to some one to go for the Maori. Witness cautioned the defendant. By Mr Lascelles : Defendant said " Go for bim, go for him." That was all witness saw or heard. Mr Lascelles said that in this case also there was no evidence of any breach of the peace having taken place. It was absurd to construe the language used by the defendant into being threatening language within the meaning of the Act. Threatening behaviour was making use of threats, and this man had used none. Never before, he felt certain, had the time of the Court been taken up in listening to a more peurile caße. George Fenwick, similarly charged, on the information of Constable Lawless, pleaded not guilty. Mr Lascelles defended the accused. Constable Lawless said the defendant was one of a disturbed crowd. Witness could not see who was fighting. Defendant was crushing his way into tbe crowd. He said, " Let us go for the natives," or words to that effect. That had the effect of causing a lot of " hustling." Witness saw a native striking out at some Europeans at the time. By Mr Lascelles : The above was all that witness saw ; he did not recognise any of the Europeans who were assaulted by the native. The Europeans were six or eight feet distant from witness. Moko was tbe native. There was a fight going on at the time witness saw Fenwick. Constable Pickering saw the defendant in the crowd. The defendant was anxious to " pick a quarrel " with some one. By Mr Lascelles : Defendant did not tell witness, or anyone else he knew of, that he was anxious to " pick a quarrel." When defendant pushed witness back he did not offer any resistance. The defendant appeared to be excited. Mr Lascelles intimated that he would call no evidence unless the Court required it. The next case, against Archibald McCormack, was then called on. • Constable Lawless, the informant, deposed that the defendant, who was in an excited state, was attempting to force his way into a crowd. Witness did not hear defendant say anything, nor did he see him go into " the ring." By Mr Lascelles: Sergeant Burtenshaw and Constable Pickering were also trying to force their way into the crowd. Witness did not lay any information against them. The only threatening behavious witness saw was tbe defendant trying to force his way into the crowd. The Court said evidence for the defence would not be required. Mr Laßcelles addressed the Court, and pointed out how unfair it was to bring men up here on a charge which there was not the slightest scintilla of evidence to justify. HIS WOBSHir'S DECISIONS. The information against Hami was dismissed, His Worship remarking that the evidence in the second case proved that he was not an aggressor. Faku Tenaru, who, the Court remarked, seemed to be tho cause of a great deal of the trouble, was fined £2 and costs, amounting altogether to £5 12s, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. Moko was fined £3, and costs 12s, or 14 days' imprisonment. The informations against Morrison, Fenwick, and McCormack were dismissed. His Worship said he really did not see what cause tbe police had to bring forward the case at all in the latter instance. There was not the slightest evidence against the man. Clements was fined £1 and costs. The Court then rose.