MAORI WOMAN DEFRAUDED

Taranaki Daily News, 18 August 1934, Page 5

MAORI WOMAN DEFRAUDED

INTERPRETER’S ADMISSION FORGERY, UTTERING AND THEFT. VOUCHER FROM NATIVE TRUSTEE. Admitting forgery, uttering and theft committed on November 15, 1932, at New Plymouth, Neho Hemi Papakura, described as a native interpreter, firstclass, was yesterday committed for sentence to the present sessions of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth. Bail of £lOO in his own recognisance was allowed until Monday morning, counsel explaining that Papakura, who had recently been operated upon at the hospital, was expecting from the Native Land Court an important document that required his attention. The proceedings were taken before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at New Plymouth, the charges being that Papakura had forged the name of Pare Ngamare to a Native Trust voucher for £lB Is 4d, intending that it should be acted upon as if genuine,'that he had caused L. W. A. Fields to act upon it, and that he had stolen £lB Is 4d belonging to Pare .Ngamare. Detective P. Kearney conducted the case for the police and, Mr. C. White represented Papakura. The first witness was Henry Seymour King, Deputy Native Trustee, Wellington, who said that the records of his office showed that Pare Ngamare and Te Paea Taurite shared equally in the estate of the late Te Aomoko Ngamere. A voucher had been issued for each of the successors fpr the sum of £lB Is 4d. This voucher, addressed care of Papakura, was made payable at the New Plymouth Post Office. The voucher was returned through the post office in the usual way, and Pare Ngamare’s account was debited with the sum of £lB Is 4d. It purported to have been signed by Pare Ngamare at New Plymouth on November 15, 1932, and the signature was witnessed by N. H. Papakura, licensed first gtade interpreter, New Plymouth. Witness became aware on March 6, 1934, that Pare Ngamare did not receive the money;

Tangi Tukapua (before her marriage according to Maori custom, Pare Ngamare) said she knew she was to receive about £lB from the estate. She did not know accused. .In November, 1932, she received £l3 from New Plymouth, but had not yet received the balance of the money. She did not give accused, authority to sign the voucher. Witness herself could not write. ’Her husband, however, could read and write. James Tukapua, her husband, said he lived with his wife in Levin. He did not know accused and had never had any correspondence with him concerning his wife’s business. He remembered the registered letter containing the sum of £l3 and also an accompanying note signed “Papakura.” Cross-examined, witness said he believed the £l3 to be part of the £lB. payable under the voucher. He did not remember if a letter was received from Papakura asking his wife to come to New Plymouth and lift the money. Lancelot W. A. Fields, a clerk in the Savings Bank branch of the New Plymouth Post Office, said he had examined the voucher on which he had paid out Before the money was paid the signature of the payee would have to be witnessed by a reputable person certifying that the person receiving the money was the person entitled to payment He would not pay out on the accused himself signing the voucher. The payee would 1 have to be present and her identity vouched for by an interpreter. The registered envelope posted at New Plymouth on November 23, 1932, and the receipt for it issued to, Papakura were produced. ;, . > '>U'i LETTER FROM PAPAKURA. John Damon, licensed interpreter, gave a translation of a note in Maori sent to Pare by Papakura. It said: “To Tangi. Greetings to you. You are too long in coming. Paea and Miria are tired. They have been waiting for you in order that you (three) might talk over the expenses in connection with ’Ngamare’s tangi, and' they want me to hold the money to pay the expenses. I cannot do that, so the money for you will be sent. It matters not whether they get angry with me. For this reason you need not come lest you may be asked again in regard to that matter. But I do not want my words repeated to them. I would ask you to show some consideration (aroha) on future payments of moneys. Health to you. Papakura.” To Mr. Whjte: It was customary in •the Native Land Court for a Native agent acting for one successor to act for the whole family. He did not admit it , was a practice for an agent acting for one successor to apply for moneys due to all successors, unless he had an authority from the majority of the other successors. There were cases in which the interpreter did not have the actual authority of all the successors, provided he were satisfied he had the authority of the whole family. No protection was given agents regarding costs from natives for whom they acted in Native Land Court proceedings. As a rule the only protection they had was to be present when the money was paid out. If they were ndt present very often they lost their costs. To the magistrate: He knew Papakura was acting for Te Paea Taurite, for he had acted in conjunction with witness. Detective P. Kearney said that on April 9 he interviewed Papakura at his house about the signature of Pare Ngamare on the voucher. “Is it about anything serious?” said Papakura. He was tlod it was about a voucher. He agreed to call at the detective office. There he . was told Pare Ngamare had been interviewed and had denied signing the voucher, or giving authority to sign. Papakura, after carefully examining the voucher had said he had certified it and vouched for Pare Ngamare’s identity. As far as he knew the woman was Pare, he had said. He agreed to give a written explanation. When they were doing ’the last page of the statement the detective stated that Pare Ngamare had said he had sent her a registered letter containing £l3 about November, 1932, and that it had contained a note signed by himself. Papakura said it was very unusual for Maoris to keep a letter or envelope. Witness said that according to his information the registered envelope and note could not .then be found. The statement was then completed. In it Papakura admitted having known Te Aomoko, an old Maori who died at Opunake some years ago. Aomoko had two adopted daughters, Te Paea Taurite and Pare Ngamare. Papakura knew the former but not the latter. He had an idea he appeared for Te Paea and Pare at the Native Land Court when the succession order was made; if he did appear he would have had instructions from Te Paea. After the order- was made he was instructed by Te Paea to write the Native Trustee, Wellington, for the money. He did so, asking that the money be sent care of him. On receipt of notices, he sent one to Te Paea, and one to Pare at Levin; the notices intimated that the original voucher and the money was at the post office for them.

The Native Trust voucher in favour of Te Paea was paid at the New Plymouth Post Office on September 6, 1932, and signed by her in his presence. He

certified her identity. She collected £lB Is 4d.

On September 6 he asked Te Paea for £2 for his work. Eventually she agreed to pay £1 and asked ’him to get Pare from Levin to collect • her money at New Plymouth, He wrote Pare asking her to come, l STORY OF STRANGE WOMAN. On November 15, 1932, he met a Maori woman in the street who asked him if he were . Papakura. She said she was Pare Ngamare and. had come to collect the money. They went to the post, office together, with a young girl of about 15, and the woman signed the voucher. She gave him 5s for witnessing the voucher. He would not know this woman or the girl again, and had no idea of their identity. He denied sending a registered letter containing £l3 to Pare as part payment for the voucher. His actions in the matter were honest. A woman did sign the voucher and he did not get anyone to pose as Pare in order to collect the money. After taking the statement the detective said it was most important to locate the woman mentioned in the statement. Papakura agreed to give every assistance to locate her. On the morning of April 11 the detective met Papakura, who asked him if he were going to be charged with theft of £5, which he explained was a balance of the voucher unpaid. He did not admit he had received the £5, but said he had expected to be charged with stealing it. The detective said that at that time inquiries were still being made. On May 24 Papakura, at request, called at the detective office, where he was told the police had been unable to locate the woman he alleged had signed the voucher. He said he had not been able to locate her. Papakura gave samples of his handwriting. On June 14, at the detective office, Papakura said he was still unable to assist in tracing the woman. Pare had found the registered envelope and the note sent by Papakura, he was told. These were handed to him.

After looking at the note a minute or so, he said, “It’s my letter all right.” Asked for a translation, he looked it over once or twice, stared at it, and said. “I suppose you have a translation?” “What is it?” asked the detective. “You have written the letter.” He replied,

“At least, I think it is mine; I am not too. sure whether I wrote it or not.” He was told that the opinion of a handwriting expert was that Papakura had signed , the name of. Pare Ngamare on the voucher. “Oh, no,” he said. He made no reply to the statement of the expert’s opinion that it was his writing on the registered envelope and the letter.

As arranged, Papakura had called at the police station that morning and had been charged on warrant with forgery, uttering and theft of £lB. After reading the charge he said “Yes.” George H. Hutton, retired bank manager, New- Plymouth, said he had had 42 years banking experience. In his opinion the signature of “Pare Ngamare” on the voucher was written by the person who wrote the exhibit signatures and the note produced.