THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5678, 11 June 1879, Page 3

THE KINROSS PERJURY CASE.

This case was before the Resident Magistrate’s Court again yesterday. Mr. Sievwright, of Sievwright and Stout, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Travers and Mr. Chapman for defendant as before. The cross-examination of Hirini Harawera Takamoana was continued by Mr, Travers, and then re-examined by Mr, Sievwright. In reply to the latter gentleman Hirini said he had only received very small sums from Mr. Kinross on account of the land acquired from him by Mr. Kinross. The only cheques he had received were one for £5, one for £2, and one for £l. Was quite sure he had never received £25 altogether from Mr. Kinross. —Mr. Travers hero produced a receipt signed by Hirini in which he acknowledged having received a cheque for £25 from Mr, Kinross. When asked to explain the receipt he admitted the signature to it was his own, but said he had not received the cheque.—Mr. Travers said he would produce the cheque on the counterfoil and show it had been paid to Hirini,—Ohepa To Binganohu said he had been served with grog at Mr. Kinross’s store, and stated that lie had been swindled out of his land by Kinross’s interpreter. He (witness) was asked to convey the land to Mr. Kinross, but refused. He was told that all the other grantees had signed and he ought to sign, and that if he did not the land would be sold by the chiefs to pay their debts, and he would get nothing in that case. Ohepa observed that that seemed to be a new law, to which the interpreter retorted, “ O, yes, that is a new law lately enacted ” Ohepa then signed the conveyance. Further, he ’stated that lie had repeatedly asked for accounts from Mr. Kinross, bat never could get them, and did not to this day know how his money had gone. In cross-examination Ohepa was asked if a signature presented to him was his, and on his replying in the affirmative, the document was 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 ns groceries, drapery, seed oats, plough's, &c., from Mr. Kinross, part of which had never been paid for. Mr. Leonard Stowe, the clerk of the Legislative Council, was then put in the box, but declined to give evidence until the special leave of the Council to his giving evidence had been accorded. • He referred to standing order 281—all standing orders being made law by the Parliament Privileges Act, 1865—as an authority for his refusal, and the Court at once relieved Mr. Stowe from further attendance.—Mr. Travers was then called by Mr. Siavvvright, and sworn, but could give no evidence as to whether the oath had been administered to Mr. Kinross when before the Legislative Council committee. The Mr. Kinross who gave evidence was certainly the Mr. Kinross defendant in the present case, but more than that he could not say. —The Hon. W. B, D. Mantell, M.L.C., was called 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 it down that it was improper for any member to give evidence without permission of the Chamber of which he was a member. Mr. Mantell was therefore relieved from attendance.—Mr. Sievwright then asked that defendant might be committed for trial, or, as an alternative, that an adjournment should be made until after the Legislative Council had met. The prosecution had done all it could to get the necessary evidence, but were foiled on a technicality, and therefore ha felt he was entitled to ono of these courses being adopted. The Resident Magistrate said he certainly should not commit on such evidence as ho had before him, and he had no power to grant a remand for more than eight days, unless by consent of both parties.—Mr. Travers said he would not consent to any remand, and proceeded to point out the hardness of the case to the defendant. The ('prosecution must have known they could not got the necessary evidence, and proceedings should not have been commenced until after Parliament met. The only course now was to drop the case. He went on to argue that the proceedings of the committee could never be produced, because they formed no part of the journals of the Council, which by law alone could be produced —The Resident Magistrate intimated that he would prefer Mr.; Rees being present when a point like that was taken.—Mr. Sievwright said he had more than twelve witnesses to call, and he should certainly ask for an eight days’ remand. The witnesses would have been down from Napier that day had not there been a miscalculation as to the time of the steamer leaving Napier.—After considerable discussion, the Resident Magistrate ■ said he should adjourn the case until Tuesday next, on the understanding that if the prosecution did not then proceed the case would be dismissed. Case adjourned till Tuesday; -------- -■