LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8063, 26 September 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Satokdai.

[Before Hi* Honor Mr. Justice Ward.] Uttering ■ Motion tor Appeal—ln the case of Charles- Aickin. who had been convicted of ottering a forged cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Mr. O'Meagher, who defended the prisoner, railed a point of law, on which he applied to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The point was that aa the cheque waa not in existence, and evidence of the fall contents of the cheque had not been given, it was not proved that it was a valid cheque, The argument on this point was now taken. Mr. Button appeared with Mr. Williamson for the prosecution, and Mr. O'Meagher for the prisoner. He based hi* contention on the case Regina v. Waters, heard in the January sittings of the Court of Appeal, in which His Honor Mr. Justice Ward delivered the judgment of the Court, and argued that it was not shown that the cheque was signed by any person. His Honor asked was that necessary ? Mr. O'Meagher quoted the case Regina v. Carter, but His Honor said that did not apply a* the aot under which it was laid was not in force here, as it conflicted with the statute. Mr. O'Meagher contended that there was no evidence that the document was a valid cheque or order calling on the Bank to pay the amount and that the indiotment should be supported by evidence of the full contents of the oheqne to show that It was a valid cheque or ordtr, and he held that the mere fact that the Bank paid the money was not sufficient to prove this. He quoted from the judgment in the case Regina v. Waters, already referred to, and he quoted the case Regina v. Dickson, which, however, His Honor said did not apply. He also quoted the case Regina v. Barneley (3 Jurists Court of Appeal cases), but acknowledged that he had not been able to find any case bearing directly on the present case. He quoted several others, and contended that the indiotment was not supportod by evidence that this was a valid cheque or order. Mr. Button was about to reply, but His Honor said it was not necessary. The admission of the prisoner took this case out of the case* cited, and the motion for the arrest of judgment was dismissed. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, commented on the prisoner's conduct not only in obtaining this money by fraud, but of allowing a fellow clerk to remain under suspicion for months. He would give the fullest effect to the recommendation to mercy in sentencing the prisoner to IS months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

The Maori Pbbjoey Case.—Hoera te Mimiha, who on the previous evening had been convicted of perjury, was brought up for sentence, Mr. Dufaur, who appeared for the prisoner, applied for a new trial on the ground of the wrongful admission of an affidavit by Hoera, and he had had no time or opportunity to contradict it. His Honor said it was his own affidavit, and he could not oontradict it. The application was refused. 'l he prisoner then proceeded to make a statement reiterating the assertion that it was because he found Wight ravishing his wife that he cut off his ear, and that it was he himself who had informed the police and appealed to the law. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve months, such term to oommeuoe at the expiration of the present sentence. Mr. Dufttur applied that the other perjury cases might be allowed to stand over till next session. His Honor asked on what grounds. Mr. Dufaur replied that it was on the ground that His Houor himself direoted the prosecution, and he sat on the bench in the position of judge and prosecutor. His His Honor told Mr. Dufaur he must tell him to sit down. Whenever a judge directed a prosecution, that prosecution took place before him. Mr. Dufaur then asked for the adjournment on account of the illness of Tica, one of his principal witnesses. His Honor refused the application, and asked Mr. Cotter what course he intended to take. Mr. Cotter replied that he intended to go on with the other oases. As the case against Campbell was fixed for Monday, it was decided not to take the oase against Hariata until Tuesday. OPUNAKE E.M. COURT. Wednesday, September 7, 1887. Fence - breaking. — Informations had been laid against three natives of the JVgatituhekerangi hapu byTeKahui, of the Ngatihaupoto rapu, that they did unlawfully acd maliciously break down a certain fence there, to wit, a sod bank, post and wire, the property of Te Kahui aud others, thereby doing injury to the said Te Kahui and others to the amount of £5. Mr. Inspector Fardy prosecuted. Defendants did not appear Major Tuke, E.M., was on the Bench. Mr' Inspector Pardv. in opening the case, in" formed the Bench that a summons had been duly served on the defendants, and, as they did not appear, he WGuld proceed with the case. Inspector Pardy called Te Kahui,who was duly sworn (an interpreter being present to interpret), said he belonged to the Ngatihaupoto tribe, adjoining the Ngatituheke> rangi hapu. The land on whioh the damage whs done was on our land, Crown-granted by the Government. The Crown grant was put in as evidence, showing the lands Crowngranted. The defendants' Dames do not appear on the Crown grant. They have no right or title to interfere with that land. The sole title our hapu has is the Crown grant. Our hapu agreed to the fence being erected. Creek Rangi, Abraham Reuben, and some of the old men who are not present, commenced the fence at the boundary peg, /working north on our own land. There were between nine and ten chains erected. \lt is utterly destroyed. William Thomas Harvey deposed : I am a dealer residing near Eahotu. I was employed by Reuben (i native) to assist in ereoting this fence on Kahui hapu land. We commenced at the boundary survey peg on the South Road. Erected between nine and ten chains of

fence. It is utterly destroyed. The destruction was done on Sunday, the 21st 'August last. I was working at it the i day previous. 'ihree natives oame on the -same day, and told me they had destroyed the fence. Their names are, as I know them, Tey, Davie, and Te Whatarau. Davie told me in English that they had destroyed the fence. Davie is a half-caste, and can speak good English. Heuben was called, and substantiated the former witnesses ; also

the price, 10s 6d per chain, which was to be paid for erection of the fence. Porikapa deposed he kaew the fence put up by Harvey and Reuben, He saw Davie, Rangitehingi (Tey), and Te Whatarau destroy the fence. Henry May Street, surveyor, gave evidence that it was a Government survey line. He had visited the place when the fence was destroyed. There was no trespass by the Ngatihaupoto natives. The fence went in a northerly direction. Harvey, recalled, said the reason the native gave for destroying the fence was because the Jand did not belong to the Ngatihaupoto tribe. Mr. Skeet had measured, and found 9i chains destroyed. Judgment was given, and the defendants fined 10s each and costs, one week to pay, or in default one month's Imprisonment with hard labour. Fines, £1 10s; damage, £4 19a 9d ; and costs, £3 7s : total, £9 16s 9d. —[Own Correspondent.J