A NEW YEAR'S ESCAPADE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8424, 24 January 1899, Page 2

A NEW YEAR'S ESCAPADE.

A COSTLY EVENING'S AMUSEMENT. The case against Te Kawau Kingi, of maliciously destroying three apple trees, one peach tree, and a honeysuckle plant, the property of Daniel Courtney, at PariInmanilii, on New Year's E\'e, was resumed at the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr J. Booth, S.M. The. case had been adjourned on Friday last for the purpose of allowing Mr Nolan, who appeared for the prosecutor, to call rebutting evidence. The defendant was representea by Mr W. L. Rues. Joseph Hatnon, a Bheepfarmer, residing at Waerenga-a-hika, deposed that he waa well acquainted with the accused, whom he saw on New Year's Eve on his premises at Waerenga-a-hiUa. Witness asked the defendant what he wanted, and he replied that lie required money, as it was New Year's Ni"lit. It was about half-past twelve when he saw the defendant outside his house. Another Native was with the defendant, and was tryiug to get him to go home. Witness w»« cross-examined by Mr Rees at some length as to what took place between himself and the defendant upon the occasion of his visit. He could not, ho said, be mistaken as to the identity of the accused, for he made use of very bad language to his wife. Witness was within a loot of the defendant when conversing with him. The defendant waa very much under the influence of liquor at the time. Mr Rees : Was there anything else that made you certain that this was the person ? Witness : Yes, the accused told me that he intended to bring down a crowd of Maoris to mob me. David O'Connell, a settler, residing at Waerenga-a-hika, stated that he knew the accused by his features, though not by . name. He remembered New dear's Eve, and had recollection of seeing the accused at the Waerem,'a-a-hika Hotel that evening. It, waa after dusk that he saw the accused, but he could not remember the time. By Mr Rees: He saw several other natives and Europeans at the hotel that evening. Witness mentioned the nameß of several persons of both races that he remembered seeing. He could not fix the time but he believed it was between nino and ten o'clock. Mr Rees said that the rebutting evidence called by the prosecution waa not rebut ting evidence at all as it did not contradict any statement made by the accused. Tho evidence was so conflicting that he did not think the Bench was warranted in convicting the defendant. The preponderating evidence was certainly in favor of the defence. Mr Nolan, in reply, commented at some j length upon the evidence given by the witness called for the prosecution, and contended that there could be no possible mistake as to the identity of the defendant. The Magistrate thought that the evideuce of the witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution proved conclusively that the defendant was at Courtney's on the nK'ht in question. The testimony of tho witnesses for the defence was in a great measure contradictory, and he would therefore enter up a conviction" against the defendant. He was in doubt as to what ho should do with the accused, who was not of age. He did not wish to ruin the boy's prospects by sending him to gaol. Mr Roes said that, had the case been before the Supreme Court, he should certainly have applied for probation. His Worship imposed a line of i' 3 and costs £11 17s 6d.