THE NELSON TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22197, 26 February 1934, Page 9

THE NELSON TRIAL

CROWN CASE CLOSING ( NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) APIA, February 22. - The Nelson case was resumed tb-day, Tuala Tula, a Mau member, continuing his evidence. Witness said that he was present at meetings of the Mau at the residence of Nelson, when the defendant urged the natives to proceed with a fono themselves. The spokesman told Nelson that the Mau declined to accept his adivce, and insisted that the defendant should be present. It was Nelson’s wish’that a large "body of men should not travel in the Malaga parties. Cross-exxamined, witness said that he had not heard Nelson’s name mentioned in connection with the orders for the arrangements of the Malagas. He was present on one occasion when the Mau received Nelson’s message advising it to exclude him from the representatives of the conference. The Mau still desired to meet the Administrator. Witness had been fined £l, in default three weeks’ imprisonment, the conviction being for Mau activities. He served the time, as he preferred prison to payment. The Mau would never agree to hold a fono without Nelson,

Tauiliili, secretary of the Savaii Malaga Party, who is serving a sentence of six months, stated that he read out a document signed by Tuala and others (produced yesterday) in eight Savaii villages. A portion of the document was identical with the one found in Tuaefu, headed “Malaga Around Upolu.” Witness at first denied knowledge of the identity of the representative named therein, but finally admitted that it was Nelson. Witness said that the Mau taxes collected comprised two shillings each for a chief and one for each young man. The main object of the Malagas was to inspect plantations and to judge plantations. Every village was not inspected, only those near the road. The Mau had collected taxes for years. Corrections were made in the Mau plans to avoid the commission of offences. Witness was told this by the Mau secretary. He knew also that the number of the party, was reduced at the wish of the defendant.

Sergeant Seiuli stated that he had been nine years in the German police and 20 years with the present Administration. He was present at the taalolos given in honour of Nelson in September, and' was * also present on the occasion of Nelson’s departure when he was deported. He heard Nelson say that he was leaving in obedience to the order of the Administrator. He promised to return to victory, “God willing.” The Mau was told that victory was in their hands. Prior to the adjournment the defence intimated that they were not calling any evidence, but would present legal argument when the prosecution closed. It is expected that the Crown case will finish to-morrow. MAU PRESIDENT’S EVIDENCE. APIA, February 23. (Received Feb. 25, at 5,5 p.m.) Sergeant Seiuli, under cross-examina-tion when the Nelson case was resumed, said the talolos given in honour of Nelson in September were Mau functions because they were organised and attended by Mau natives. Vaeluaga and Leitu taxi drivers gave evidence of driving Mau visitors to the defendant’s residence at Tuaefu. The prosecution closed its case and the judge called Faumuina Fiame, the Mau president, as the court’s witness and asked him ‘to relate all he knew concerning Nelson’s alleged association with the Mau in August and September, 1933, the period covered in the charges. Witness said the natives’ discontent prior to the citizens’ meeting in 1926 was not due to the influence of Nelson. The Mau at first desired to obey the law and pay taxes, but after the visit of Mr Nosworthy and the banishment of witness the members decided to cease paying taxes and quietly break the laws. The alleged motto of “ Samoa for the Samoans” was first used by Sir George Richardson. The judge recommended that the eight charges which are being heard should be amended to a single. simple one and undertook to supply counsel with instructions on the course to pursue. He also offered to recall any witnesses to assist the defence. It is reported that the defence rests solely on legal argument concerning the validity of the Samoan seditious regulations of 1930.