THE DEFENCE OF TURUTURU MOKAI

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5558, 8 April 1905, Page 15

THE DEFENCE OF TURUTURU MOKAI

(To the Editor “N;Z. Times.”) Sir, —In your issue of March 23rd. there is a-letter from Mr Jno Ingram stating that on reading an article on Turutuni Mokai, he was much surprised at seeing the name of Michael O’Connor omitted. I have to acknowledge that I gave a verbal statement to a gentleman, by request, some months ago, and I maintain that the article referred to is quite correct. I mentioned only names which had something out of tlio common connected with thorn, viz., Captaiji Ross having his heart out out, Tuffin receiving five wounds, my brother being shot by a white man, and Gill being the only man not killed or wounded out of seven, not six as previously stated. Gill and myself were the only two alive in the angle when the fight was over, as the other wounded men had retired to their tents. I saw everything that took place in that angle, as I was there from start to finish, and I did not see any particular act of bravery by any individual. Every one did his level best to keep the Maoris at bay. This is the first time I ever heard of O’Connor taking command of the half-dozen men in the angle; nor have I heard of the deserter being wounded by him. It is also stated that the redoubt was in the possession of the Maoris, except one of the angles, where O’Connor and bis few men were, and that this was rushed by the Maoris, who were met by the two Beamish Bros, one of whom fell and the other was wounded, while Stevens and OfOonnor continued . the fight. As a matter of fact, the redoubt ‘was never in the possession of the Maoris; there was no man by the name of Stevens in the redoubt nor was my brother in the angle. The men who held the angle were Sergeant MoFadden. Constables Ross and Sllehb (who were killed), and Tuffin, O’Connor and myself, wounded—Gill being the only one who escaped : unscathed. I was quite close to those men and know what nart they took, and I am perfectly satisfied that every man did his duty. This is the first time I have written to a paper on this subject, and I would not have done so now were it not for the exaggerated statements made in Mr Ingram’s letter, which is not fair to the other men who took part on that memorable occasion, although Mr Ingram may not be to blame, yet I think he will admit h© has been misinformed. —I am, etc., J. G. BEAMISH. Patoa, March 30th.