TE KOOTI’S APPEAL CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 938, 21 February 1890, Page 20

TE KOOTI’S APPEAL CASE.

(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Auckland, February 19. The appeal of Te Kooti against tbe order of Mr Bush, R.M., at Opotiki, that he should find sureties to keep the peace, came before Mr Justice Conolly at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr Napier appeared for the appellant, and Mr Sutton for the respondent, Inspector Goodall. The grounds of the appeal were chiefly that the order was ultra vires ; that the Resident Magistrate had no authority to isßue such au order ; that the order did not show on the face of it that Te Kooti had committed any offence ; that the facts did not warrant the issue of such an order, and the order did not affirm that the offence was likely to be repeated. His Honor upheld the appeal. He said the case appeared to him to be this; Te Kooti had not been in Gisborne for twenty years, and at that time he committed certain acts ; but six or seven years ago he received a full pardon, and after that he continued to aet in a peaceable manner. Tbe question was, was he entitled to go to Gisborne? Could there be a doubt that he was perfectly entitled to do so ? Ho would, it appears, have gone to Gisborne, and that would have been at his personal risk. There was nothing unusual in his starting with about a dozeu people then. According to Maori custom, when a person of note was travelling his following greatly increased, but whether that was by his wish or not did not appear. His intention was to go to Gisborne, and no doubt his arrest was a very wise measure, but the question for tho Court to decide, was was it lawful ? Now, looking at the order itself, he saw that the complaint was laid by the Inspector of Police, alleging that Te Kooti did an offensive act. The first part of the plaint alleged that Te Kooti did an offensive act, but where was the offensive act 1 It was clear that Te Kooti never assembled the Natives to disturb the public peace or to alarm her Majesty’s subjects. He must have done some offensive act, and the Justice must be of opinion that such an act was likely to be repeated before an order for sureties should be made. For these reasons bo considered that the appeal ought to be allowed. Then as to the form of the order: The Aot was hot explicit, but he would order that tbe appeal be allowed. He held that the order was bad and not justified by the Aet, and he considered that whatever was done with Te Kooti, however wise it might be, was not justified by law.