AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13192, 1 June 1906, Page 6

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

CHARGES AGAINST MAORIS DISMISSED. Comments BY the JUDGE. "CONSPIRACY AND PERJURY." The criminal sitting of the-- Supreme .Court for the Auckland district were c"v tinned yesterday, before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. The case against Tali* Wi Ilongi, a Maori youth, charged with having committed a criminal assault *»■ a Maori girl at Kaikohe, on April 2, and that against. Tiro.hu Wi Hemara, a middleaged married Maori, charged with aiding and abetting in the offence, was proceeded with. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. A. Toic) prosecuted, and Mr. .1. R. Reed appeared tor the defence. Hemara denied the charge, and said that owing to his having remonstrated with the father of the girt assaulted about the treatment, of his wife, witness believed li*» had an ill-will against him. The prisoner, Hongi, so tar as he knew, was not on the read on the evening of April 2, when the offence was committed. Among the other witnesses was Hanoitana, a Maori, who deposed that on the evening of April 2 he overlook a waggon on the road in charge of a Maori named Htti. The waggon was stuck, and witness gave Hui n hand to release it. The wo girls rode up and stopped. The girl Aleged to have been assaulted got off he horse, and went along the main road with Hui. They were away a-fjuarler -if an. hour. He could not say whether the girl was leading her horse. His. Honor: Nonsense, nonsense. Hither you arc making up this story or you can, tell n.s a good deal more than von "are (piling us. You mean to (ell us' vou cannot, say whether she was leading a horse then' Witness: No. Mr. Heed : Have you forgotten whether she was leading her horse or not? Witness: Yes, I could .not- remember His Honor: You Matched Hui and the girl for three or four minutes, and von cannot, tell us whether she was leading a horse"' ° Witness: No. T cannot. To Mr, Tole: He knew the night of th* assault, because another native, Hohepa, ttipta. told him it was that night. It was a dark night. His Honor: How could you see three or four chains if it, wafi dark? Witness: I could see" a. little all right. His Honor: This is a. funny story vou are telling us. You say Hut was'stuck in the mud, you stopped to help him, then tin and the girl walked away, and when they returned you went awav. How did you help him? Witness: J stayed there to help him. Hui did not (rouble about his waggon 1 he, waggon was not really stuck, but the torso could not take it up the rise, and he said ho would leave it there till'the morning.

His Honor: And you did uol help him'* ;;. .Witness,: No. ,He said lie would leave it till the morning. Mr. Tole: Are you not making all this up: :, .:...■ ° Witness: No. I am not making it, all up . Mr. Tole: You seem to have a Very bad, memory? Witness: It is very had nil right. His Honor: 1 understood, him to say he. was told he would be paid well if he came down to. give evidence. , \ •< Witness: No; pay my way. Ngatote, a Maori; who spoke English well, said'on the evening of April 2ho was tiding along the road when he saw Hui and the girl alleged to have been assaulted about lour chains from the waggon. . When he passed he heard the girl say in Maori Let me .go." Ho saw people at , the' ' waggon.;.:. ......... l . . Hohepa Ripia, a. Maori", deposed that he met the party at the waggon on the evening of April 2, where Hui and the girl were standing on the ground. Hui was holding the horse. Wiri Ilipia stated he remembered being at the waggon. The girl' and Hui were standing on the ground. ' ■ In rebuttal, ihe girl alleged to "have been assaulted denied making any remark to Hamurana whilst at the waggon." The - sister of the girl said she did not hear any such remark. , A small /Maori boy, the brother of Hui, said' neither; of the girls got, off their horses while (hey were tit the'" waggon. Hui deposed that his waggon got stuck m the road, and Hamurana assisted him to get it out; . . His Honor: Then Hamurana did help him: r Hui (continuing) said after, the. waggon was extricated he put.it on the- side of the road, intending to remove it, the following morning. While he and' Hamurana were at the waggon the girls rode up' to them. I hey did not dismount. ■. This concluded the case,, which had lasted about three days. His Honor said it was quite plain there was a great amount of conspiracy and perjury on one side or the other, and it was lor the jury to discriminate which of the parties was guilty of these offences. It was very difficult to make up one's. mind that'■ these girls had concocted the story. On the other band, it was impossible," seeing how many witnesses had been called for the defence, to say there was no reasonable doubt about the prisoners' guilt. The jury, ' could not find the' prisoners guilty if there was any reasonable doubt. The' acquittal of the prisoners upon the charge would not necessarily end the matter, neither would their conviction. " It is to be hoped the police will be able to find out on which side perjury ha.s been committed," said Hit Honor. After a retirement of 20 'minutes the \\\rj returned a, verdict of not guilty against eaob of the prisoners, who were accordingly discharged.

CIVIL SITTINGS CAUSE LIST. The following is the cause list for thfl civil sittings of the Supreme Court, appointed to commence on Morula* next:—Before a common jury of 12: Alice Kempton v. H J (Jol<J Mining Company. Limited, ±,IMU damages for alleged injuries received; James Francis Geary v. Donald McDonald, £501 for alleged slander. Before a common jury of four: Harrington Ralph Keesing and Henry Ash ton Wright v Alexunder Eccles, £80 lslOd, and £395' 16s, balance for shares sold and £20 5s commission, etc. Without a jury: Catherine Mac- : Kenncit, Angus McKenaie, Flora MeGretchie,. Murdoch McCrelchie, Margaret Mckenzie, Mary MoKenzJe. Charles Mckcnzie, y Murdoch McKenzie. Stephen Thomas Brent, and Ann Robertson, action for probate in solemn form; Margaret Marr v. John. William Walsh, specific performance ot agreement: Thomas Coates v. .specific performance; Emma Green v. William Monaghan, specific performance: . Harold Edward Ivey v. John J. "idle, £1000 damages, or specific performauce; Assets Realisation Board v. Alexander Orr Thomas Heath. Peter Chapman. Charles Manuel. Thomas White, James *lemin ? , Thomas Hinton, Henry J. Clifford Frank J. Marshall, and John Miles Clifford specific performance of agreement; James Francis Geary v. George Shalloon, b&l damages for alleged slander. In divorce.— dissolution of marriage (decrees nisi). Before a common jury of 12mrir* Jan,es Bramle v Agnes Brawler (William Day Leslie, co-respondent); John Baxter Lister v. Clara Ann Lister. Without a jury (for nullity of marriage) Mart Jane Morgan (otherwise Mary Jane Casley) v. Andrew Morgan; Clara Grainger (falsely called Clara Newsuin) v. David Arthur Newsum. Without a jury (decrees nisi for dissolution of marriage): James Old field v. Mary Melntyre Oldfield (Reginald Wilkinson co-respondent); Ivy Miller v. Charles Bertland Miller; Joseph Abozide v. Emma Abozide (John Siggitan co-respondent) ; John Hepworth Chapman v. Kleanoi Chapman ; Charlotte Currie v. George Currie.