OWNERS BY CONQUEST.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 231, 27 September 1905, Page 2

OWNERS BY CONQUEST.

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. j' I I A. GLIMPSE INTO MAORI HISTORY. |: . 1 1 A case <j>" considerable interest has ! been engaging the attention of the Na- i ' *' re _ Land Court of Appeal in Auckland, i' and judgment has now been driven by !" the Court. •? Tiie case concerns the Otakanui Block ari HeiensviUe. Un area of 0000 acres. ' It was an appeal from an original inves- ! ! ligation t-j decide who were the native ; owners of this block. The title origin- ' slly c-ame from a conquest. The land |' v.-as uco'er the occupation of the Waio- ' liua tribe when they slaughtered one of the warriors of the Xgatiwhatua tribe. The outraged Ngatiwhatuas : came down in their war canoes by the Wairoa to avenge the insult One party I landed at Paparona and were victori- j ous. The others swept further down the broi.d waters 01 the Wairoa xo flelensviile and conquered the Waio- . bnas with much slaughter. That was |, nve generations ago. ana subsequent to |! the utg expedition, the Ngatiwhatua, j finding the land fair, settled upon it, extending their conquests till they reach- \ od from Kaipara Heads and the Kau- ; ; kapakapa River down the Tamaki '■'. River to Onehunga. The Ngatiwhatua. - : ■with the assistance of a neighbouring ! hapu, called Xgatititau. finally com- j pletely conquered the Waiob.ua and all ; their lands. One of the principal chiefs j of the conquering tribe was the aneee- i tor of Paul, the late chief Orakei. The j principal chief in the conquest was. '• however. Poto-puaka. After the con- \ quest the iand was Kotikoti, or divid- j ed up amongst the hapus and families. and xhe question for the Court to de- !' cide was who got The present bJoc-k in | that allocation. It \va? held in the Xa- j tive Land Court that the principal chief- I who participated were Tauhia. Potopuaka and Huka. and ordered the de- j scendants of these to be placed in possession of the block. There had been | _ quarrel in the tribe, and one of the I conquering chiefs, Ruarangi, had receiv- j ed his rights for the conquest not in j this block but in the adjoining one of ; Paparoa. The descendants of Ruarangi appealed against the decision and claim- j ed rights in the other Otakanini Block.

Mr Earl represented these descendants, and Mr E. C. Blomfield anu Otene, a native, represented the other descendants.

After hearing the evider.ee the Appellate Court held that the adjoining block into which Ruarangfs descendants hac been admitted was. as the Land Court had ruled, ancestral land and not conquered land, but that any rights which tie descendants of Ruarangi might have obtained by the conquest had befii completely abandoned by them by 1102----oeeupation or usurc of the laud. They had, therefore, no rights remaining in that land, and the judgment of the Native Land Court was correct. The Appellate Court dismissed ""he appeal with costs £S.