MAORI RATES COMEDY

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14764, 1 October 1921, Page 6

MAORI RATES COMEDY

COUNCIL WINS CLAIM. LIVELY COURT SITTING. HARANGUE BY AGENT. The action brought by the Raglan Gounty Council lo recover £l2O 10s from Klti Terau, and £23 2s from Maria Mahutu, widow of the late "king," which had been adjourned since last Court, day to enable Die defendants to obtain legal advice, was concluded at Ngaruawahia on Thursday. The Court was tilled with natives. One enterprising spectator was with difficulty removed from the prisoner's dock. At the previous hearing the two defendants produced receipts purporting to give them a clearance of all rates, the documents being signed by the treasurer of the "Maori Kingdom," Iluntly. When the case was called, two native agents appeared. The two defendants said one of these was not acceptable, but undaunted at the rebuff, the agent concerned made an excited harangue during which he repeatedly opened and closed a small portmanteau, containing copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, statutes and other documents. He told the Court lhat in spite of the defendants he represented the Maori race, and wound up by asking the Court to delay judgment until Mr T. M. Wilford had piloted some projected legislation through Parliameul. The receipts were again produced, and the two agents became involved in an argument as to the correct translation, this necessitating intervention by the "royal treasurer." The accredited agent then told the Court that it was thought unnecessary to consult a lawyer, as the case had been referred to him. The defendants aid not pay the Raglan County, because they paid their own council instead. The Maoris had given land, roads. churches, schools, and railways, which benefited everyoneCounsel for the County Council said the Maori Churches Act gave power to collect a tenement tax within the village at the king's pa, about 30 acres, and the land in respect to the larger claim was over HO miles away. The county cleric, Mr, Marsland, said it. was a serious matter to his own and other counties, as there was no knowing how much county rates the "king" collected. Previously the two defendants had always paid rates to the County Council. It was a very grave matter, and the council would have to take action to have it stopped. The magistrate, Mr Young, gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and £ll costs in the first instance, and £5 costs against Mrs Mahuta. He said every opportunity had been given the natives to explain the position. If the defendants paid the money by mistake or misrepresentation to the "king" they should sec a lawyer, but they must pay the county rates.