THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 383, 14 June 1879, Page 19

THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

' • '1 his - case* was' before the Resident* Magis"tra!e'sConrtagainod Tuesday. <Mr; SieVwright,of Sievwright and Stout, appeared for the proseand Mr. Traver 3 and Mr. Chapman for defendant as before. The 'cross-examination "df Hirini Harawera Takamoana was continued 1 by Mr. Travers", and then fe-examindd by Mr. Sievwright! In reply to the latter gentleman--1 Hirrni Baid : he had : inly received- very small sums from Mr. Kinross on account of the land acquired from hini by Mr.-Kinross. -Theonly cheques he had : rec'eived wei'e one for £5, ! one for &% and onb' for £V. ■ Was qiiite' sure he had never "received £25 ' altogether fro'm" Mr. Kinross.^-i-'Mr:'Travers" here produced 4 i'eceipt J signed by Hirini in-'which ha acknowledged having' received a cheqne for £25 -from- MH "Kinross: ' When asked'to-explain the-'rec=ip"b he admitted the ! signature to'it was' hfs owd, but "said fie hail r not 'received the - chequer.'-^-Mf. 'Travers fe'afd he'\VouhP prHddce' the ' cheqiife on the'conhterfr.iFa-nd shoW it 'had been •pHaid-to Hiririi.—Oh'epa Te Ring-mryhu snid he -had been seiwb'd with grog at ■ Mr. Kinross's fetorej 'and'stated that- he' Imd'been'swindled out of his land by Kinross's''inter[)retei'. He' (witness) was asked' to cbirvtey'the' land tb Mr. Kinross/ but refused. 'lfe w.as bold that allthe other gran'tees h;i'l ! si;j;ded isind -he ought to sign,andthatif he Aid not- the* land-"would 1 be sc>l<l by the vhiefs-'to p.\y tWeir debt«, -ami 'he Would' get riothing in that case. \ Orrep'ti I 'observed' that that seemed to J be a'-riew law,-■ to'whch the interpreter'retorted, " O, •vesj-tlirit'is u new law lately enacted "- Dhepu' then 1 the 'conveyance. " Further, lie stated that' he had repeatetlly asked for accounts from' Mr. Kinross, but never could get them, and did'not-to 1 this day know how his money had gone. In cross-exnininatidu ' Ohepa was- asked''' if 'a signature : presented' to- him was- his, and 'On his replying in the affirmative", the document ' wa< 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. Josiah 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'f6r. -Mr. Leonard; Si owe, the clerk-of the 'Legislative Council,'wnsth'en put in the box, but declined' to* give evidence'unbilthe special Idave 'of- the-'Council "to his giving evidence had been accorded.' He stanrJiDg'brtier 281-^-*- ! aHstariding i * t »rdw»'bßidg"«mi'Jrf .lanfriby •ti&&"¥ehiMßiei&*

■Privileges Act, ISG5 —as an authority for his ■refusal, and the Court at once relieved Mr.. Stowe freip. 1 f in-tlier attencliinca—tMr. was then called ,by Mr. Sievwright, and sworii, but could give no evidence as to whether the 1 oath had been administered, to Mr. Kinross when beforothe Legislative Council committee. ■The,Mr. Kinross who gave evidence was certainly the Mr. Kinross defendant in the pre"scnt case, but more than that he could not sav. —The-Hon. W. Bi D. Man tell, M.L.C., was oalled 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 ir.. down that iti was improper! foe iany member, to give evidence >-without, permission . of the Chamber ,of. w'ajch.he .was a member... Mr; ■Mantell- was therefore relieved from atten-. dance—Mr. Sievwright. then asked.that defendant'might be'committed for. trials or, as '-am'alternative, that an adjournment shquld.be * made'until a f ter the .Legislative Council had. metJ -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 adapted. •'Phei Resident .Magistrate said )\e certainly should not,, commit on such evidence ,as I he had before .him, and he had no power to grant a remand for more than eight,c|ays, un-,' less iby copsent of both ,parties.-:—Mr. Travers ■ said'he would, not .consent to any rqmapd, and = proceeded to point out the, hardness of the,case to the defendant. The, prosecution inust have known they .could., next .get the necessary evidence., and proceedings should not have been commenced ,untjl after Parliament met. ,The only course now thejease.. ( He went : -on to argue, ,tba,t the proceedings of the committee could never be ,produced,,bee iuse fhey formed no part of the journals of the Council, -which by law alone could be produced i: — The' Resilient Magistrate intimated that he 'would pi-efer Mr! Ree's' being 'present' when'a point 4ike that was' taken.'—-Mr. 'Sirywriglit'sald he 'had!more tliah'twelve witnesses'to call, and he •«hould* certainly ask'Tor'an eiifht days' remand.' ■ The witnesses would have been down'from'NVi-' pier that flay 'hacl'iiot' there been' a "miso'alcula- ■ tiuu as to'the time of tlie steamer leaving Napier.—After considerable' discussion, the Itesi-' 'dent Magistrate said he should Adjourn the case until Tut/s'day next, on the understanding' that if the' "'prosecutiHh' did not then proceed ■'the'case Would Yje dismissed.' Case 'adjourned" till Tuesday. . ''/, . ".',' "' ." " .'"