MAU HOSTILE

Southland Times, Issue 20999, 4 February 1930, Page 7

MAU HOSTILE

Threats to Kill Witnesses Warned MR NELSON’S LIBEL CASE ADJOURNED SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, February 3. The shooting affray in Samoa was referred to in the Supreme Court this afternoon in connection with an application for an adjournment of the claim of the Hon. O. F. Nelson for £lO,OOO for alleged libel against the New Zealand Herald sine die The adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that 11 material witnesses in support of his case had taken to the bush and because of the Administrator’s proclamation, they could not be obtained. After hearing argument, Mr Justice Herdman allowed Mr A. Hall Skelton, counsel for plaintiff, until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning to file an affidavit on oath giving the names and addresses and the evidence expected of these witnesses. His Honour commented strongly on the publication of a report in which the New Zealand Herald witnesses were described as rogues and stating that they would be gaoled on reaching Auckland. He added that the persons responsible for the publication were Interfering with the course of justice and proceedings would have to be taken against them. A sensational affidavit filed by the defence of Ainuu Tasi, the Samoan High Chief, was to the effect that if he gave evidence he was warned by members of the Mau that his life would be in danger and Mr Richmond, for the defence, said that threats to kill witnesses giving evidence against Mr Nelson had been made by members of the Mau. Supporting the application for the adjournment, Mr Skelton said that since the disturbance, which was no fault of plaintiff’s, the witnesses, having taken to the bush, were not available. One witness was in custody. The Judge: Have you tried to get into touch with them? Mr Skelton: It’s impossible. The police are chasing them. When his Honour asked for the names and addresses of the witnesses and counsel demurred, the Judge told him plainly that the Court was not going to be humbugged in the matter. “It is not your fault the case has not been tried before this, but it’s time it had,” added his Honour, who persisted in his demand for the names, addresses and details of the testimony the witnesses would give despite counsel’s protests that, he could not legally be compelled to give this information. His Honour: Do you say that because you give the names and addresses of your witnesses that the Administration would prosecute and imprison them ? Mr Skelton confessed he did not know For the defence, Mr Richmond described the application for the adjournment as utterly indefinite. No one, 'he said, could foresee the end of the trouble. The Judge: If the troubles go on intermittently the case may have to be dis-, continued. Mr Richmond pointed out that several of the witnesses of the defence had been threatened by the Mau if they gave evidence against Mr Nelson. Mr Skelton: Only if they gave false evidence. His Honour said it was impossible if plaintiff could not produce his witnesses at a later date. The case might have to be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Mr Richmond said the limit of untruth was expected to be given in evidence. He went on to refer to the statement handed to the Press by Mr Hall Skelton on his return from Samoa. Mr Skelton: They took it down on the boat. Half a dozen reporters. Mr Johnston, for defendant, pointed out the amount of propaganda being issued in Samoa concerning the case and also a wireless message from Mr Skelton from'Samoa saying that the case would have to be adjourned. His Honour said the best possible course in the circumstances might be to adjourn the case until the May session, but he would decide the point to-morrow morning.