CLIMAX OF MAORI SQUABBLE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 January 1933, Page 3

CLIMAX OF MAORI SQUABBLE

JERRY PUNCHED LUCY’S EAR. TROUBLE AT PARIROA PA. On January 9, 1933, a long standing domestic squabble between various familea at Pariroa Pa, Whenuakura, ramp to a head when Jerry Hokopaura allegedly struck Takapara Hinga, known as 'Lucy Lockett. When Hokopaura answered a charge of assault at the Patea Court yesterday Mr. I. H. Cowdell appeared for him and Mr. R. C. Rutherford for the ■ complainant. A native woman, Mary Graham, living at the pa, said that on the morning .in question about- ’ breakfast ■ time Lucy was op the verandah, and they both saw Jerry’s little boy going to catch a horse which Lucy was looking after for one Alii. Lucy had asked the boy and later his sister whether they had permission to catch the horse; thd girl said they had nb permission. Lucy grabbed the horse from the boy. Morena, Jerry’s wife, came over and a fight began between her and Lpcy. ’ Two daughters of Mrs. Jerry had taken a hand. In a short time Jerry came along and he punched Lucy. It happened on witness’ verandah.

Questioned, by Mr. Cowdell witness said that when Jerry arrived, be was “puffing and looking mad,” givmg the impression they might all get a hiding. Jerry had. sajd npthing but she had seen his hand coming round to hit Lucy. Rahira Broughton, also on the verandah at Mary Graham’s, told a tale corroborating the previous witness’ evidence. Jerry had come along “bawling loudly” that he was going to hit Lucy. He punched her hard on the ear and she cried. They had seen Mrs. Peter Lockett, run up the hili to get Jerry. For the defence Mr. Cowdell pleaded extreme provocation extending over several months and led lengthy evidence to establish the muddled basis of the squabble. Accused swore that the blow he struck was with his hat only; he had been very angry. .

“If I’d hit her properly I’d have killed her,” announced witness definitely from the box. Most of the trouble was apparently due to differences between the women folk at the pa. From the tale as unfolded by half-a-dozen women witnesses it appeared that the pa had been scarcely a happy family for months.

LJr. Cowdell submitted that the evidence established gross provocation and asked for a nominal penalty only. In convicting the accused and ordering him to pay costs the magistrate remarked that provocation was not a legal defence in cases of this sort. The assault had been established and he must convict accused. The magistrate added that he would like to see all such disputes settled in the pa; they were riot 1 eases where the aid of the Court ought to be invoked.