HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9819, 19 July 1900, Page 5

HASTINGS MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Messrs Beilby and McLeod, J. 'sP.) [own correspondent.] false pretences. Ratima Hapuka was charged with having, on May 31st, obtained the sum of £3 from J. D. Rivers under false pretences, viz., that the sum of £70 was due to him from the New Zealand Government.

Mr Scannell, who appeared for Mr Rivers, applied that the information be amended by reducing the sum to £2, so that it might be dealt with summarily. He did not wi>h to cause the country the expense of a committal; he only wished the case to be a warning to Raiima.

Mr G. E. Lee objected to the amendment, and claimed that the Court had not the power to do it.

Mr Scannell said that the Bench had power to do so. He was willing that the point should be referred to Mr White, solicitor, who was present, and not being interested in the case could act as " friend of the Court."

The chairman asked Mr White if he was willing to give an opinion on the point. »

Mr White said he was quite willing to assist the Court, but would not like to advise the Court without knowing more of the circumstances.

The Bench having consulted, the chairman said that he repeated what he had often said before, that ifc was not; to be expected that the Justices of the Peace, who had not been trained to the law, should decide upon a disputed legal question between two lawyers. In his opinion there should be a legal adviser appointed to the bench. The Court would prefer to have dealt with the case summarily, and would have done so if they could have kept within the four corners of the Act. In the opinion of the Bench they had no power to amend the information without the consent of accused, and therefore decided to proceed with the case as an indictable offence.

Joseph Daniel Rivers was then called. He deposed he had obtained judgment in the Magistrate's Court on Friday last for £15 at-ainst the accused. The £3 mentioned in the information was obtained from witness by accused, in order to release his buggy, which was detained for repairs. Accused told witness, not once but forty times, that he was waiting in Hastings for the sum of £70, the price of timber cut. He stated that he had missed the Government agent, a Mr Thomas, or Thompson, by three days, and was daily expecting to receive the money. Aftergetting judgment, witness believing that accused was about to leave for Patea, interviewed him. Ratima then told witness that he had no money coming from the Government; he had sold his share in the timber some time before.

In answer to Mr Lee, witness said he was certain that Ratima had not said that the money he was expecting was for his family, for whom he was to collect it.

Charles Near, livery stable keeper at the Albert Hotel, deposed to hearing Katima state that he was expecting money from Wellington.

Mr Lee objected that this had nothing to do with the charge, but the Bench ruled that it supported Mr Rivers's evidence. Another attempt was then made to induce accused to be dealt with summarily, but he having solicitor, refused. Upon this the Bench committed him for trial. B*il was allowed, the accused in £50, and two sureties in £50 each. Mr Lee asked the Bench to reduce the b*il to one surety besides accuse Pβ. The Bench refused. Here an unexpected development occurred. Mr Lee, after consulting with the accused, announced that Ratima would plead guilty and consent .to summary proceedings.

Mr Scannell consented, and said he would not press for a heavy punishment.

A fine of £3 was imposed, with costs £1 Bs, or one month's imprisonment. Accused was allowed one month to obtain the money.