THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 382, 7 June 1879, Page 19

THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

The hearing of the charge of perjury against Mr. J. G. Kiuross, a merchant, of Napier, adjourned from Tuesday last, was resumed at the Resident Magistrate's Court on Saturday, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Rees and Mr. Nolan for the prosecution, Mr. Travera aud Mr. Chapman for the defendant.

Mr. Rees, before calling his next witness, said he had searched lor authorities on the question of recording the evidence of native witnesses in Maori. All he could cite was that Justices Johnston and Gillies had refused to receive testimony which had been translated from Maori into English. Mr. Baker, clerk of the Court, was perfectly competent to write the native evidence.

Hi * Worship had no objection to this course, but he thought it would be a great waste of time. He did not however altogether agree with the rule. How would it apply if they had witnesses of half-a-doxen different nationalities ?

Mr. Travera considered there was no necessity for the course proposed by Mr. Rees. He had never heard of such a mode of recording evidence being deemed imperative before. However, as Mr. Baker, clerk of the Court, was an excellent Maori scholar, the native evidence might be taken as delivered. His Worship decided, as the Court possessed the necessary facilities for recording the native evideuce in Maori, it should be done, but was at the same time by no means disposed to accept the rule as imperative.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court, those whose te.-timony had already been taken being, on the application of Mr. Travera, ordered to withdraw.

Paramena < »ne One deposed he was one of the grantees of the Raukawa Block. Mr. Kinross was now in possesion, aad daisied Ms

(One One's) share in the block. He had signed a mortgage of his interest in Raukawa to Mr. Kinross in the presence and at the request of the accused. Mr. Woman 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 $c >m the witness Davey. Kinross never asked £ »r p lyment in money for the goods. Raukawa h .d been mortgaged to Mr. Kinross for four y>ars, and the accused now claimed the land »ei his own. When signing receipts for goods tney had never been translated to him. Ho 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 £l4O for the mortgage of his share of Raukawa. He got ever y thing he asked for at the store. He could not say how much Bpirits he got altogether. He always signed a paper for whatever goods he received. He did not always uuderstand what he had signed for. By Mr. Rees : The man who gave him the goods was Yates, a witness in this case. Hiaka Kapo deposed he knew the blocks of land known as Ngatarawa, Mungaroa, and Rauhawa. He was one of the grantees of those lands. The heir of Sir D. McLean now claims the Ngatarawa lands, and Kinross the Mungaroa and Rauhawa. The money Kinross paid him for his land was rum. He (witness) never paid money for spirits. Mr. Kinross had asked him repeatedly to mortgage his land, aud 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 lands to Kinross' and Worgan's care for 22 years, at the end of which time it wa3 to be returned to him.

By Mr. Travers : The goods he got from. Kinross' store was 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, but Mr. Kiuross was at the head of the transaction--.

Hiriui Hawera deposed that he was interested in all the lands mentioned in this case. His lands were now claimed by Mr. Kinross aud the heir of Sir D. McLean. He had mortgaged his land to Mr. Kinross, the consideration being goods and spirits. There were large quantities of the latter. He never paid cash 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 stood. 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 £lO 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 louger that day, and would be unable to resume the hearing of the case before Tuesday week, the 10th instant, at the earliest.

Mr. Rees said the Supreme Court would be sitting iu Napier at that date, and he had several important cases to conduct there. He would ask 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 wituesses several officers and members of the Legislative Council, aud 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 sail 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 adjournment 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.