A NEW YEAR'S ESCAPADE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8421, 21 January 1899, Page 3

A NEW YEAR'S ESCAPADE.

PROVING AN ALIBI.

The ease against Tc Kawau Kingi of having wilfully destroyed throe npi>lo. trees and one peach tree, the property of Daniel Courtney, of Pauhimanihi, was resumed at the Magistrate's Court before Mr J. Booth, S.M., this morning. Mr Nolan appeared on behalf of the prosecutor and iMr Rees for the defendant. Captain Ferris acted as interpreter. A number of Natives; were in attendance, and toolc a keen interest in the proceeding. Mr Bees said that on the previous morning he had stated that he intended to prove an alihi. He was now prepared to do so. Certain remarks had been made by the Bench of the great danger the district was exposed to by the prevalence of so much larrikinism, and when His Worship had heard the case for the defence he would comment on the greater danger of witnesses going into the box and .swearing to .1 particular statement. His Worship stated that his remarks the previous morning had general leference to the mischievous practice indulged in by a certain class of young men every New Year's Eve. Mr Rees : Yes, and they are remarks in which everyone should concur. At tiie request of counsel for the prosecution, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. The first witness called for the defence was the mother of the defendant, Hara Ruihan-.i, a wcH-dres=cd Native woman of intelligent demeanor. She deposed that her son occupied the same whare as herself. He came home early New Year's Eve, and went to bed about 7 o'clock. Defendant, did not leave the whare during the evening. She woke several times during the evening, and observed that the defendant was in the whare. Air Courtney came the following day and complained to witness about the damage that had been dove to his trees. Witness wont down to the informant's place and saw the- trees, which were not destroyed to the extent that had been represented. Witness had another son, who was not in the whare that night. He came home at an early hour on New Year's Day. By Mr Nolan : She was certain that the defendant was in the whare the whole night. When Mr Courtney came in the morning Kingi was asleep, and he woke him. His Worship : What day of the week •was this. Witness : Saturday. His Worship : Think again. Witness (after a long pause) : No, it was Suuday. Tuteari Kingi, a well-built Native, called by Mr Kees, stated that he was a brother ot defendant and lived in the same whare. Witness was passing the informant's place early on New Year's Eve, and saw a number of Native children on the road. Alter he passed the chiliren he went, home. All his people were in the whare when he arrived home. The. defendant ■was there in the whare asleep. By Mr Nolan : Witness went, down to the Waerengaa-hika Hotel on the evening of the 31st. Kingi was at the hotel before dark, but witness could not say how long he remained there. Witness was drunk later in the evening, and did not remember seeing Kingi. When he got home Kingi was in bed. Namu Teau, a gaily-dressed young Native woman, deposed that she was the wife of Tuteari Kingi. On New Year's Eve she occupied the same whare as the defendant and other members of his family. The defendant came in early in the evening and did not go out again. Tiopira Kinga, a boy of about eleven, was next called. In answer to the Bench as to the nature of an oath the lad replied "God will punish me if I tell a lie." Witness said he was one of a party of four who went " to the happy New Year business at Courtney's," a remark which convulsed the court with laughter. It was about eleven o'clock when he left home. The defendant did not go with the party, neither did he join them during the evening. Mr Nolan : What time did yon go out to the happy New Year 1 Witness ; About 11 or 12 o'clock. Mr Nolan: What time does the New Year commence? Witness : Twelve o'clock. Mr Nolan : And you went out to catch it. >Vitness: Yes. In answer to further questions, witness stated that ho and three other Native boys beat Courtney's dog off with a stick. Considerable argument took place between counsel as to such questions being put to the witness as might lead him to incriminate himself, Mr Recs several times protesting. The Bench : Did you ask the people in the- house to give you something^'! Mr Rees: I really must object. Your Worship. That question has no right to be put. It certainly incriminates the witness. Mr Nolan : I wonder what my friend will say next. He has no right to talk to the Bench in such a manner. The Magistrate repeated the question. Mr Rees : I advise the witness not to answer such a question. His Worship again put the question, the witness stating that they did not ask for anything at the house. This concluded the case for the defence, and His Worship asked Mr Nolan if it Was his intention to call rebutting evidence. Counsel said that he coidd do so, but it would necessitate a further adjournment. The Magistrate said he was anxious to get to the bottom of the ease, and would therefore like to hear such evidence as they could call. The case was adjourned until Tuesday next to enable Mr Nolan to bring further evidence.