THE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MR KINROSS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5401, 6 June 1879, Page 3

THE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MR KINROSS.

We take from the New- Zealand Times the following extended report of the evidence given last Saturday, in the adjourned case Regina v. Kinross : — ■ All witnesses were ordered out of Court, those whose testimony had already been taken being, on the application of Mr Travers, ordered to withdraw.

Paramena One One deposed he was one of the grantees of the Raukawa Block. Mr Kinross was now in possession, and claimed his (One One's) share in the block. He had Bigned a mortgage of his interest in Raukawa to Mr Kinross in the presence and at the request of the accused. Mr Worgan was present. He had received clothing, spirits, and provisions as payment. He had fetched the goods from Kinross's store, but could not remember in what quantities. He often received spirits on fetching the goods. He had never paid money for the goods or spirits. Raukawa was to pay for them. He had also received spirits faom the witness Davey. Kinross never asked for payment in money for the goods. Raukawa had been mortgaged to Mr Kinross for four years, and the accused now claimed the land as his own. When signing receipts for goods they had never been translated to him. He had received accounts from Mr Kinross, but had lost them.

By Mr Travers : He had not spoken to anyone as to getting back Raukawa. He was unable to speak English. On going to Kinross's store he got what he asked for, whether money or goods. He was to receive £140 for the mortgage of his share of Raukawa. He got everything he asked for at the store. He could not say how much spirits he got altogether. He always signed a paper for whatever goods he received. He did not always understand what he had signed for. By Mr Rees : The man who gave him the goods was Yates, a witness in this oase.

Kiaka Kapo deposed he knew the blocks of land known as Ngatarawa, Mungaroa, and Raukawa. He was one of the grantees of those lands. The heir of Sir D. McLean now claimed the Ngatarawa lands, and Kinross the Mungaroa and Raukawa. The consideration Kinross paid him for his land was rum. He (witness) never paid money for Bpirits. Mr Kinross had asked him repeatedly to mortgage his land, and he had several times refused. He (Hiaka) had also received spirits from Davey, which he had paid for in produce. He had never consented that £530, money he owed Davey, should be placed as against any of his land. That sum was due for spirits. Worgan had asked him to entrust the land to Kinross and Worgan's care for 22 years, at the end of whioh time it was to be returned to him.

By Mr Travers : The goods he got from Kinross's store were by orders from Mr Campbell.

By Mr Rees : He did not pay Campbell for goods except by mortgage of his land. That mortgage he believed to be to Campbell's, but Mr Kinross was at the head of the transactions.

HiriniHawera deposed that he was interested in all the lands mentioned in this case. His lands were now claimed by Mr Kinross and the heir of Sir D. M'Lean. He had mortgaged hia land to Mr Kinross, the consideration being goods and spirits. There were large quantities of the latter. He never paid caah for the spirits he received. He never had money given to him which he had handed back for spirits. He had at the tangi on his father's death got a cask of spirits as large as the box in which he then Btood. Other natives got spirits from Mr Kinross besides himself.

By Mr Travers: He was examined before the Legislative Council Committee in 1871. He was not then asked whether he had received spirits as consideration for his land. He had received £10 in a public-house when signing a deed of the Raukawa block.

It being now past one o'clock his Worship said he could not sit longer on that day, and would be unable to resume the hearing of the case before Tuesday, the 10th inst. , at the earliest.

Mr Rees said the Supreme Court would be sitting at Napier at that date, and he had several important cases to conduct there. He would aak his Worship, if the other side did not object, to resume the hearing shortly after the meeting of Parliament on 11th July. He would be obliged to call as witnesses several officers and members of the Legislative Council, and he understood that if he summoned them without the consent of the Council itself he would be attached for contempt. He had no desire to come into conflict with the Council, and if the case were adjourned till that body met it would doubtless at once give the necessary permission.

Mr Travers said he must strongly object to the course proposed by his learned friend. It would be insufferable that a man should have a grave charge resting on him unanswered for so many weeks. His Worship saw no objection to the ajournment proposed, but would certainly not consent to it without the accused's sanction.

After a long argument between the opposing counsel, principally as to the admissibility of the printed journals of the House as evidence, the case was adjourned to the 10th inst., Mr Rees saying he would return from Napier on that date.