DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8007, 12 September 1906, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

TUESDAY. (Before His Honnr District Judpe Kettle.) After wo went to pre s s yesterday the Court continued the hearing of the case against Kenneth Bayne, who was charged with stealing a piece of gre-mstone from a Maori grave at between the Ist and 4th day of June, 1905, aud with receiving greenstone between June, 1905, and January, 19J6, knowing it to b« falsely obtained. Robert Glentworth, dairy factory worker, said he and prisoner went and n-moved the mere from the grave. They covered up their tracks. On the way back to the whare Hayne planted it in some fhx. \\ hen they reached the whare, prisoner suggested that the Maoris would be offering a reward, which they should divide. Next day he left for a place 20 miles away. Iu five or six weeks he returned to the prisoner's whare. Prisoner said the Maoris bad been blaming: him for caking the mere. Prisoner said never mind the .£,O, the Maori a would be offering £2O. Witaea went to Oparau to work. He wrote to prisoner that Constable McCarthy said it would be all right if they put back the stone. Witness was summoned, and the case was adjourned. Fe advised prisoner to put the mere back. Before the adjournment he saw prisoner, at Lemon Point. Prisoner told him that he had sh.fted the mere to a place called Potato. Witness was away when the mere was first wisaed. Witness was convicted in his absence. He was working in a factory and could not attend the Court. He was arrested and brought to Hamilton and remanded to Kawhia on condition that the nitre was restored and that be gave evidence. He was working 20 miles away from Kinohaku on January 2t>'.h, and had been there three months. He told Constable McCarthy that there was a man named Powell working near the grave. He intended to tell the constable a lie. His idea was to draw a red herring across the trail. Constable MoCarthy, of Kawhia, ia the course of his evidence, said he had told Glentworth chat he would not prosecute if the mere were returned, as the Maoris were extremely aaxious to get it back. Glentworth, however, said he was going to hold out for a higher reward as he thought the Maoris would offer £IOO. Witneis, therefore, laid an information and served a summons on him. Toe case came on before Air JSorthcrott, at Kawhia, but was adjourned to January 3 st last and again to May, when he was convicted and brought up for sentence at Hamilton on May 18th. Witness was absent in Wellington. Before he returned Bayne was arrested by Constable Murray. He was remanded on bail, but the remand was converted into a summons to save repeated remands, owing to the difficulty of getting two justices ac Kawhia, and Glentworth working at a distance from Kawnia. His Honor: A new procadure! But we are always learning something. Witness further related having advised Glentworth to put back the stone and have done with it. The same witness and Sergeant Stapleton gave further evidence as to appearances of Glentworth at Court. Mr Reed, in opening for the defence, pointed out that the prosecution depended on the evidence of an accomplice, wno was still under arrest, sentence being deferred until the present case was disposed of. lhat witness therefore had the strongest motives for attributing the offence to the accused. lhe prisoner, Kenneth Bayne, farmer, Kinohaku, said Duncan MacDougall and Glentworth were stopping at his whare last May. Prisoner was absent for a couple of days returning on May 23rd, 1905. After tea he was sitting in the whare with McUougall and Glentivorth, when the latter said he and Cole had seen a fine greenstone in a hole in the ground. No grave was mentioned. Accused asked why he had not brought it. Gientworth replied that he could soon get it, and it accused would come, he would show it hitn. i'hey went between 6 and 7 o'clock. Accused thought it was in the old kainga behind the Kinohaku boardinghouse, towards Haupokia'a. When they got nearly through the clearing, accused asked where the stone was, and Glentworth said it was over the hill towaras Haupokia'B. Witness then said it was too far to go that night, aud besides the mere might belong to the natives, but Glentworth said it appeared to have been there a long time, aud offered to go and fetch it. He went and returned after half an hour with a greenstone mere. Witness remarked it appeared to bo a valuable stone and advised him to t ike it b:ick. He also said he would have nothing to do with it Glentworth then said he would plant it there, and if any noise were made about it, he could return it. He asked witness to say nothing ab-iut it, ant witness promised not to, provided Glentworth took it back if there was any row. Witness did not see it again until January 27th, in Ji*upokia's hand on the Kawhia beach. Glentworth left on Juno 6th of last year. Some time in June he heard Huupokia making inquiries about the mere. Witness wrote to ulentworth advising him to restore the stone. He saw Glentworth a few weeks later at Kinohaku aud told him again about the stone aud advised him to take it back. The latter replied that Wilson would give him £2O for the stone, but he (Gientworth) thought he could get £IOO tor it iu Auckland. He also, on being persuaded by prisoner, said he might put it back if he got the chance. After being charged, Glentworth saw accused and asked him to say nothing about it. Accused consented, and Glentworth said he would return the stone, (subsequently (ilentivor.h wrote asking him to put the stone back for him, dropping it anywhere near the Kainga. but witness replied that he would have nothing to do with it. Witness knew where it was planted.

Cross-examination by Mr Tola was largely directed to show that accused cmtinued to shield Glentwurth after the latter persisted in retaining the mere. Witness den ed that he was waiting for a reward. Donald Macdonald, painter, Kiuohaku, said he heard on a Saturday of the mere being found on the previous night. He was flat fishing with Biyne at Ohau Bay that uight. He was with pris' ner from 730 to IU. They did not pass Haupokia's piace, which was about a miie troui Ohau Bay.

After about half an hour's deliberation the jury returned with the following finding to issues placed before them by His Honor :

(1) l)id the accused go with Glentworth to get the mere, intendng to steal the same, and did they steil the same : j -No. (2; Did the accused take or know that the mere was taken from grave ?—No. (3) Did he know that the mere was afterwards hidden in a flax buah ?—Yes. (1) Did he take the mere to the gate of the kainga and leave it there, intending to return it?— No. (5) Did the accused, knowing that the mere Lad been stolen by Glentworth, deliberately conceal the fact and persuade Glentworth to do so, and did accused make false and misleading statements to the police with the view of shielding Glentworth ?—Yes. (6) Did the accused endeavour to induce Glentwurth to return the merer —Yes. (7) Did the accused, knowing that the mere was stolen, receive, or take the same into his pjssession r— No. (8) Did the accused, knowing that the mere was hidden, do iberately conceal the fact that it was so hidden with a view of shielding Glentworth r l —Yes. His Honor said the jury had found accused not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but it remained with the Crown to decide whether further proceedings shonld noc be taken in respect lo the offences for which he was indictable. Accused was discharged.