TRIAL OF THE MAORI PRISONERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 5803, 24 September 1880, Page 3

TRIAL OF THE MAORI PRISONERS.

(Pee Press Association Special Wire.)

New Plymouth, September 23rd,

Sixty-five Native prisoners were arraigned this morning at the District Court on the charge of wilfully obstructing the [free passage of a thoroughfare at Fungarehu on the 4th September. Mr Standish, the Crown prosecutor, with Mr Sand, appeared for the Crown ; Messrs Halee and Roy for the prisoners. As the interpreter was about to read over the indictment to the prisoners, the Court ordered the Natives to take off their hate. This the Natives at first declined to do, and appeared sulky ; but after some persuaeion they one by one obeyed tbe order until all were bare-headed but one old man. He was aoinawbat obstinate, and made some harangue which was not to the Court.

Mr Halse, counsel for the prisoners, took exception to the indictment. He said it was bad on account of its uncertainty. It stated that the < ffences the prisoners were charged ■wish were committed within the boundaries of the confiscated lands defined by the schedule of the Act. There is no fourth boundary given in the description—only three sides are defined. Ha said it was of the utmost importance in a case of this kiod, when the liberty of an individanl was at stake, that the indictment should hi S'licly crrrect; and as the in dictmeiit was, it should be quashed on the ground of its uncertainty. Mr Standish replied, contending it was essential to take notice of the preamble of the West Coast Settlement Act in order to answer the objection raised by Mr Halae. It was clear from the preamble of the Act that the land mentioned in the fourth schedule of the Act was the same as that mentioned in the Act for appointing a Royal commission to inquire into Native sffairs on the West Coast. The description in that Act supplied the deficiency in the fourth schedule of the Weat Coast Settlement Act, 1880. The boundaries given in that Act were from the White Clifia to Waitotara, on the west coast of the North Island. That supplied the miseing boundary—viz , tbe coastline. In support of this argument that the preamble of the Act should be considered, he cited several cases from Mexwtll and Rougham. Mr Halse replied that nothing had been advanced on the part of.the Crown t> meet the objection he had raised. They had nothing to do with the intention of the Legislature in this case. It was not a question for the Court to cocsider whether the provisions of the Act would be readered inoperative on account o£ the omission of the fourth boundary-line. The Court must consider whether the Act itself was sufficiently definite to convict the prisoners of an offence. It was the description of the land given ia the Act itself that the Court must go upon. Any two would say that the land described in the schedule was wanting iv its proper boundary, and that the extended boundary was the eea ceast, but that boundary was not mentioned in the Act, and that omission rendered the indictment untenable. He asked his Honor to quash the indictment.

Hia Honor said he could not at that stage say tbat the boundaries were incomplete, as it was quite possible for three lines to form a complete boundary. He would, however, take a note of the objection. Thomas Humphries, chief surveyor, produced a map showing the confiscated territory mentioned in the West Coast Settlement Act, 1880. He said there was only one confiscated territory on the west coast of the North Island. The boundaries mentioned in the Act were the exterior boundaries of the old confiscation made in 1865. The whole of the land proclaimed by the Government was within confiscated territory. There was only one road under construction within the confiscated boundary. He had no doubt that the whole of the land in the vicinity of the road was confiscated land. The map had been prepared under the West Coast Settlement Act. Hβ could not fix a starting point of the boundaries mentioned in the West Coast Settlement Act The line running due east had not been cut. The line running west had been cut from the Ngarie Swamp up to the Mangatui block, a distance of about 14 miles. The Ngarie Swamp comprised 7000 acres. The boundaries of confiscated lands made in 1865 were exact, and not indefinite like the description of thei boundaries given in the West Coast Settlement Act.

Chas. Hursthouse, surveyor and engineer in charge of road-construction on the confiscated land, deposed that from the description in the first schedule of "The West Coast Settlement Act, 1880," he should say the land was the same as that included within the confiscated territory. The word " within," which wae used in the schedule in reference to boundaries, excluded the idea of any other portion of laud being intended than the confiscated lands. It certaialy meant the land to the eastward of the lines mentioned in the Act. He knew the place where fences bad been erected and palled down by Natives. It was on a road within the boundaries described in the first scheeule to the Act. The Natives sowed wheat after the road had been made. The Constabulary constructed about five chains of fencing to protect the cultivation, but the Natives pulled it up. They had special powers for taking the road in that direction. They could not avoid the cultivation unless they took the road round more than a mile. He heard the Natives ask Major Tuke to erect a gate at the fence down the road. They said they would deeiet fencing if the gate was erected. Major Tuke did not erect the gate. He had no authority to do so. He did not know whether to inform the Government of it. The Natives were told to come next day and talk abcut the fence being erected, but they did not do so. Walter Judgrow, sub-inspector of Armed Constabulary, deposed tbat he had been stationed at the Gamp since June last. The main road from Stony River to Waingongoro River ran through the confiscated lands, and was being formed. The road was 13 feet wide, acd was drained by ditches. On the 4th September, when on special duty, he saw Natives coming to the camp carrying piece 3of wood with them, acd placed them in the ground across the road. The Natives were warned to desist. They had been warned not to fence across the road on several previous occasions. Aβ the Natives refused to desist he arrested 59 of them. The Constabulary took down the fence and fenced along the road for the purpose of protecting crops, but the Natives pulled down the fence erected by the Constabulary. |gR. S. Thompson, interpreter, deposed to telling the Natives that he was instructed by Mr Bryce to tell them that they must not fence. On the 2nd of September he went to Parihaka and distributed copies of the West Coast Settlement Act, which had been translated into Maori. Te Whiti and Tohu asked him what he came for. He could not say if all the prisoners were present, although he knew that some of them were there. Me gave Kotu, who was returning from fencing, a copy, but he refused to take it, saying he supposed there were plenty at Parihaka. After he had distributed the copies of the Act at Parihaka, Tohu collected them together and threw them at witness. He was present when the prisoners were arrested. The Natives were erecting the old fence. After couneel had addressed the Court, his Honor summed up, and the Jury retiredto consider their verdict, and after remaining absent about three quarters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of " Guilty."

His Honor sentenced the prisoners to two years' imprisonment in the Lyttelton Gaol, and to find a security in the amount of LSO each to keep the peace for six months after the expiration of their sentence. He also told the interpreter to tell the prisoners that the length of their sentence depended upon how the Natives they left behind behaved themselves.