SETTLERS AT VARIANCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2419, 6 February 1909, Page 5

SETTLERS AT VARIANCE

PAKEHA V. MAORI. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday morning, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., the case of Stephen O’Sullivan (Mr. T. -A. Coleman) v. -Mold Whakarau (Mr. J. Blair) was again called on. The case was a claim for £l3 13s 6(1 for damages, etc., in connection with a ease heard some time ago, when the present plaintiff had judgment given against him in a case brought by defendant’s brother for trespass and the removal of pumpkins from land at. Ormond. The defence on that occasion was that Mohi told O’Sullivan he could have the pumpkins as -payment of a long-standing debt of 6s. The plaintiff at that time claimed that if his brother had done so ho had no right- to do so. the pumpkins not being his pro-pert;. Mr. Coleman outlined the ease for his client -and called evidence.

Joseph -Stopp, (laborer, said that in June last he saw defendant and plaintiff having a conversation in Gladstone Road. He was talking to the plaintiff., but as soon as defendant joined them, lie (witness) stood aside, as he did not wish to overhear the conversation. He heard some mention about pumpkins, .but could not recollect what it was. It was possible that he had heard about the pumpkins afterwards from the plaintiff. Ho was talking to tlie defendant on Thursday, but no -mention was made of the case. On Saturday at tlie Empire stables he saw defendant and another Native, but he could not recollect that anything was mentioned about the case. To Mr. Blair: He did not come to the first hearing of the ease because he knew nothing about it. He had no feeling against the plaintiff, who came to Takapau station to see him about the case, and told him all about it. Plaintiff suggested that he (witness) should give evidence, and said that if he had done so in the first instance ho (plaintiff) would have won the case.

Stephen O’Sullivan, plaintiff, said that .in June of 1908 he met defendant in town.* Defendant said that ho wanted Shim to lease .sojno laud, but he replied that lie did not want to have anything to do with liimiae lie stil l owed him Gs. Defendant then said ho had no money, and lie- replied that lie would sue him for it. He then said to defendant, “You had better .give me those pumpkins of yours for the Gs.” Defendant replied, “Oh, yes, you can have them. They are no good to me.” There were six sacks of the pumpkins, and he took thom away the following day, and brought them to the auction sale, where they realised 17s Gd. He packed the pumpkins across the river, and brought them into town in a springcart. He lost three days in bringing tho pumpkins into the sale. After being summonsed by defendant s brother ifor taking the pumpkins he saw defendant, who would not take any notice of him. In defending the action against defendant’s brother he incurred £2 2s solicitors’ costs, ami lost a lot of time. , . To Mr. Blair:. Ho had advanced the Gs to the defendant some months before lie 'asked for itwo.iub airys( time he was intending to lease some land from defendant, and it was his own suggestion that the pumpkins should he given In lieu of the dent. When he went into the paddock tor the pumpkins ho took down the icivec some distance from the Maori settlement, hut he did not know the Maoris were away in town. He had asked tho witness Stopp .what he knew about tho case, and Stopp at first appeared to know all abdut'it, but later on he knew nothing about it. _ This was all tile evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr. Blair opened the case for tho defendant. Mold Wbakarau said that he only knew a ilittlC English, and lie did not understand what the words 1 will sue you” meant When ho got the Gs from .plaintiff they'wore negotiating about a lease of Waituln block. Plaintiff had never asked' him for the return of the. 6s, .and J (witness) never authorised plaint in to remove tho pumpkins. They had several conversations regaulmu the proposed lease, and idauitift spoke English, which defendant- could u dSaml a little. Tho -punvj*.« were liot. liis to ,g.ro ,W. aj>« ><_ had no right to sell them, lie o cn ©rally took AHimiona with him in oi\der to interpret for lnm. Witness was cross-examined by Mi • Coleman, and His Worship said that there was'not sufficient evidence to entitle .plaintiff to succeed in _ the action. Plaintiff would accordingly be non-suited., with costs amounting to £1 11,3 Gd. .