ALLEGED PERJURY.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 387, 11 April 1902, Page 4

ALLEGED PERJURY.

A middle aged native of intelligent demeanor named lopa te Hau was indicted on a charge of perjury arising out of evidence given in a charge of theft against another native in the Magistrate’s Court. Mr J. W. Nolan appeared for the prosecution, and Mr W. L. Rees (with him Mr L. Rees) for the accused. Mr Hei acted as interpreter. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs Edward Chrisp (foreman), George Williams, John Henry Hill, Henry Stevenson, John Sheridan, Frederick Charles Bull, William liiug Robb, Enoch Richards, Harry Miller, Samuel Earle, Edward Allen Reynolds, Geo. Edwards.

Mr Nolan having opened in full, called William Alfred Barton, Stipendiary Magistrate at Gisborne, who deposed that he knew the accused. The latter was before the Court in January last, an information havmg been sworn by him against Te Whetu Butene, charging the latter with the theft of DIG 10s. The ease was heard on January 14th, and Mr Charles Ferris acted as interpreter. Witness was sworn and gave evidence upon the oath administered.

Witness was proceeding to state the evidence given when His Honor pointed out that the Magistrate, not being a Maori scholar, could not be sworn as to what had taken place. The interpreter, he thought, was the proper person to speak as to what had been said. Mr Rees said that ho intended to have raised this point in cross-examination. His Honor said that there was really no reason for the Magistrate to have been called. Mr Nolan said that Mr Barton had taken full notes and would give the evidence as translated to him. His Honor remarked that he had on several occasions been asked for his notes in eases of perjury and had refused to give them. A judge should never be called for this purpose, and the witness was a judgo in this ease. Mr Nolan said that he had two or three questions to ask, and continuing, asked the witness to identify a cheque presented in Court during the hearing of the ease. Mr Rees objected, but His Honor ruled that Mr Barton could speak as to the cheque being produced in Court. Tho cheque in question was identified by the witness.

Charles William Ferris, licensed interpreter, deposed that he acted as interpreter in the case in question. The accused gave evidence and afterwards signed it as correct. The depositions were produced and read in Court. In answer to Mr Rees witness said that the whole tenor of the evidence given by the accused was that he did not know anything about a second cheque, and that he did not give any cheque or security for a gambling debt. Te Wbota Rutene deposed that early in January last the accused in company with other natives was playing cards at his house. Witness and his wife won, the total sum being £l3 10s. lopa gave witness a cheque payable to order, and as ho could not cash it he returned it to him and received from him an open cheque. Cross-examined by Mr Rees, witness said that the card playing continued for some days, aud sometimes until early in the morning. After playing for some days lopa’s cash ran out, and he was compelled to resort to cheques. Witness could not tell wl%at be won on any particular day. His wife took part in the playing at times and won several pounds. The cheque produced was given to witness in lopa’s kitchen, in the presence of several witnesses. He had previously returned the cheque payable to order to lopa. The accused told him to take the cheque to town and get it cashed, and to return that portion of it to which lopa was entitled. The cheque was for £4O, and witness hud to deduct the sum of £l3 10s, money which he and his wife had won at cards, together with the sum of £6—which he had lent lopa. lopa did not tell him t'na* the cheque for .£4O was to purchase cattle for himself (lopa) and another native named Ruku. Witness had started a prosecution against lopa for malicious prosecution, and was claiming the sum of £250. The action was to be tried during the coining civil sessions> Albert M. Lewis, storekeeper, residing at Te Karaka, deposed that he was acquainted with the natives concerned in this case. He remembered the action being brought in the Magistrate’s Court against Te Wheta for theft. lopa, the informant in that case, kept a banking account and was in the habit of getting blank cheques from witness. lopa had two blank cheques on the 4th January and one on the sixth. The cheque produced was obtained on the sixth of January. On the sixth of January Te Wheta’s wife came to the store and presented a cheque with the words “or bearer ” erased. The cheque appeared to have lopa te Hau’s signature; Witness was familiar with lopa’sjsignature, and the cheque was one of two that he had obtained from witness on the fourth, the amount being £4O. Witness did not cash the cheque, but afterwards told the woman thaj he would do so if lopa endorsed it. lopa came to witness and asked for another cheque, stating that he was going to give Te Wheta and his wife a fresh cheque. Witness gave him a cheque, as previously stated. Later on the cheque was brought to -witness to cash by Te Wheta. Witness saw lopa a little later, and the latter told him not to cash the cheque, as he had stopped payment. He was certain that he saw two different cheques on that day, and they were both signed by lopa. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.