WERE THEY WEDDING GIFTS?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3539, 1 June 1912, Page 7

WERE THEY WEDDING GIFTS?

A YOUNG MAORI’S MARRIAGE. SIDELIGHTS ON NATIVE CUSTOMS. 0 A FATHER’S CLAIM * * A pleasant looking old fellow, with a musical voice, his son Solomon and his daughter-in-law, the only pakeha, were the chief characters in an interesting drama, dealing with some phases of Maori life and disclosing a state of family infelicity, usually foreign to New Zealand natives, was enacted before Mr. W. A. Barton, S-M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Napera Kiwi (Mr. Coleman) claimed from Madge Kiwi (Mr. Burnard) £32 11s for property alleged to be wrongfully retained and £5 damages for retention of the same. All the witnesses for the prosecution gave evidence through an interpreter; those for the defence, in English. . , Nopera Kiwi (Mr Coleman) claimed defendant was married-to his son, who had lived on his (plaintiff’s) property They came to his place in 1907, and lived there, with his consent, for two years'. They were two-years away, and came back to- him, living with him until March of this year. Owing to the conduct of his son’s wife and other circumstances, they left his house again. The chattels he claimed were as follow:—1 black mare, valued at £l2; 1 cream cow. £lO ; 1 red and white cow, £10; 1 kettle, 2s 6d ; 1 •spade, os; garden fork. 3s 6d. When defendant left his place in March last, she took the above-mentioned articles with her at about 7 p-m. The day they left he -instructed them to take nothing away with her. He had never given them any of the articles. To Mr. Burnard: .When defendant and his son were married, they lived in a house on his property, in which his two sons and his daughter had equal shares. His -son Solomon and his wife (defendant) provided the furniture. He could not get on with his son’s wife. He did not present her with the red and white cow. The cow was not then a- calf—tit was eight years old. The cream cow v r as then a calf. On leaving his place defendant and her husband went to Nolan’s for a year. With them they took a horse (not- the one claimed for), but not a cow , . Mr. Burnard: Do you hate your d au-gh ter-i n -1 aw ? Kiwi: I do- not care for her. Mr- Burnard: Have you said you would crush her under your foot ? Kiwi (emotionally): Why should 1 say that? .. , , Mr. Burnard: Have you called her a- “rotten white dog?” Here, Kiwi’s language poured out like a. torrent, pleasantly modulated and accompanied by gesticulation, but his Worship stopped such questioning, and the answer was known to the interpreter and witness alone. Plaintiff, continuing, said that the mare was used by anyone wanting it. Eliza Pohatu, plaintiff’s daughter, residing at Te Kuiti, said she knew the black mare and a red and white and a cream covy, the property of her father. Her father had promised to give her the cattle, when they were calves. She had not seen the cattle for two years. Prior to that time she had been in the' habit of visiting her •father frequently. She had not heard the defendant claiming the horse or the cattle, nor had she heard anything about her brother’s wife getting them as a wedding gift. She regarded the property as her father’s. Solomon generally milked the cows, but she could not sav whether he broke the mare in.

Mr, Burnard: Is it not the custom "for a Maori bride to get a present? "Witness: Yes, but I was away when Solomon was married, and I do not know what they got. I did not- hear of them getting anythingEhiaa. Hokeke said lie knew the mare in question and the two cows. The red and white cow was grown-up when Solom-on Kiwi and his wife came to Wainui. Tlie cream cow was not born then. He always understood the cattle to be the property of Napera. Kiwi, and the mare, that -of a “grandchild.” He had heard nothing of a present to defendant as a bride. He had had contentions with defendant.

Mr. Burnurd said the defence was that the goods claimed were the property of the defendant. When defendant first arrived, the Maoris, were pleased to have her as a relation, and all went well until lie natural race antagonism set in. When defendant arrived at the place after marriage, her husband’s mother gave her the red and white cow, then a calf. On the father’s arrival three days later he told liis son to catch the mare, break it in, and give it to the bride for a present. The trouble arose because the couple were living in European style, and succeeding. The cream cow being the other’s calf, it was taken iis defendant’s property, and other calves, on plaintiff’s* property, would be claimed by defendantSolomon Kiwi, station hand, living at Wainui, said that his mother (now dead) gave his wife a red and white calf, some garden tools, and the. black mare. They were given as wedding presents. They furnished the house, which was on his father’s land, and was witness’s propertyTo Mr. Coleman: He broke the mare in after he brought his wife back from the South Island. She was worth £8 or £9. When he went to live at Nolan’s he was breaking the mare in. When lie arrived from the South with his wife,’ the red and white calf was tied to the door of the house, as a gift to the bride. ITis father handed the filiv over. The cow had three calves, counting the cream cow, and the other two were at his father’s plhce still. He took the mare and the cattle in the dusk, because lie thought nobody would see him. His father was telling an untruth when he said the cattle were not given to liis wile. He was a more truthful man than his fatherHe had heard his father tell lies before. ' , His Worship: I am sorry to hear you sav that. Mi - . Burnard: He must tell the truth in the box. Mr. Coleman: They both can t. Mr. Coleman (to witness): Who do you think is likely to tell the more truthful story ? Do you think it likely that your poor old father, with one leg in the grave, is coming here to tell an untruth? He did not claim your, furniture or anything else. Solomon: He claimed the piano. . Madge Kiwi said that the mare and cattle were given to her. Sbe had ridden the mare for six years. Whenever the old man wanted the horse he asked her. If John Kiwi said lie paid most of the money for the piano, lie would -be telling a- decided untruth-

His Worship said ho was not satisfied that defendant’s evidence was correct. He gave judgment for the amount claimed (£32 11s). Court costs (£1 10s), interpreter’s fee (10s 6d), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s), with damages £l. The order for the payment of the £32 11s to bo reduced to 10s if the goods were returned.