THE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MR KINROSS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5410, 17 June 1879, Page 3

THE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MR KINROSS.

, We take from the New Zealand 'limes the following extended report of the further hearing of the charge of perjury against Mr Kinross, in the Wellington Resident Magistrate's Court, on Tuesday last : —

Mr Sievwright, of Sievwright and Stout, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Travers and Mr Chapman for defendant as before. The cross-examination of Hirini Harawera Takamoana was continued by Mr Travers, and he waa then re-examined by Mr Sievwright. In reply to the latter Hirini said he had only received very small sums from Mr Kinross on account of the land acquired from him by Mr Kinross. The only cheques he had received were one for £5, one for £2, and one for £1. Was quite sure he had never received £25 altogether from Mr Kinross. Mr Travers here produced a receipt signed by Hirini in which he acknowledged having received a cheque for £25 from Mr Kinross. When asked to explain the receipt witness admitted the signature to it was his own, but said he had not receiyed the cheque. Mr Travers said he would produce] the cheque on the counterfoil and show it had been paid to Hirini.

Ohepa Te Ringanohu said he had been served with grog at Mr Kinross's store, and stated that he had been swindled out of his land by Kinross's interpreter. He ' (witness) was asked to convey the land to M? Kinross, but refused. He was told that all the other grantees had signed and he ought to sign, and that if he did not the land would be sold by the chiefs to pay their debts, and he would, get nothing in that case. Ohepa observed that that seemed to be a new law, to which the interpreter retorted, "0, yes, that is a new law lately enacted." Ohepa then signed the conveyance. Further, he stated that he had repeatedly asked for accounts from Mr Kinross, but never could get them, and did not to this day know how his money had gone. In cross-examination, Ohepa was asked if a signature presented to him was his, and on his replying in the affirmative, the document was unfolded, and was found to be a receipt in full satisfaction of all claims on Mr Kinross, after the accounts had been gone into by Ohepa^' aided by Mr dosiah Hamlin, licensed interpreter. He also admitted that he had got large quantities of goods, such as groceries, drapery, seed oats, ploughs, &c. , from Mr Kinross, part of which had never been paid for. , Mr, Leonard Stowe, the clerk of the Legislative Council, was then put in the box, but declined to give evidence until the special leave of the Council to, his giving evidence had been accorded. He referred to standing order 281 — all 'standing orders being made law by the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1865 — as an authority for his refusal, and the Court at once relieved' Mr Stowe from further attendance. Mr Travers was then called by Mr Sievwright, and sworn, but could give no evidence as to whether the oath had been administered to Mr Kinross when before the Legislative Council committee. The Mr Kinross who gave evidence was certainly the Mr Kinross defendant in the present case, but more than that he could not say. The Hon. W. B. D. Mantell, M.L.C., was called upon to give evidence, but said while willing to give evidence, he was desirous of not doing so until he got the leave of the Council, because " May" laid it down that it was improper for any member to give evidence, without permission of the Chamber of which he was a member. Mr Mantell was therefore relieved from attendance. Mr Sievwright then asked that defendant might be committed for trial, or, as an alternative, that an adjournment Bhould be made until after the Legislative Council had met. The prosecution had done all it could to get the necessary evidence, but were foiled on a technicality, and therefore he felt he was entitled to ' one of these courses being adopted.

The Resident Magistrate said he certainly should not commit on such evidence as he had before him, and he had no power to grant a remand for more tlian eight days, unless by consent of both parties. :, Mr Travers said he would not consent ,to any remand, and proceeded to point out the hardness of the case to the def en-

dant. The prosecution must have known they could not get the necessary evidence, and. proceedings should not have "been commenced until after Parliament met. The only course now was to drop the case. He 'went on to argue that the proceedings of the committee could never be produced, beoause they formed no part of the journals of the Council, which by law could be produced.

The Resident Magistrate intimated that he would prefer Mr Rees being present when a point like that was taken. Mr Sievwright said, he had more than twelve witnesses to call, and he should . certainly ask for an eight days' remand. The witnesses would have been down from Napier that day had not there been a miscalculation as to the time of the steamer leaving Napier. After considerable discussion, the Resident Magistrate said he should adjourn the case until Tuesday next, on the understanding that if the prosecution did hot then proceed the case would be dismissed.