TAUPO LAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 228, 25 September 1940, Page 8

TAUPO LAND.

A MAORI'S CLAIM.

ANCIENT RIGHTS RAISED.

An action relating to the ownership of certain land at -Taupo as between the Government and Maori claimants wae commenced before Mr. Justice Fair iu the Supreme Court to-day. A Maori suppliant, Xgahuia Ripcka, widow, of Taupo. claimed a declaration <jf her right to ownership of a piece of land of Hi acres where the Waikato river leaves Lake Taupo, ujioii which the Government had e.re<ted a house and a wharf.

The Mtppliant'e case is in the hands of Nlr. A. M. Gould, and the Crown is represented liy Mr. WK. Meredith and Mr. X. I. Smith.

In opening hie case. Mr. Gould said the suppliant's claim dated back to a Crown grant" in 1K73 to Te Poihipi Tukairangi and five other chief* of 100,080 acree at Taupo, to be held in trust for their ha]his. Included in this area was a piece of land known ae Parakirl, at the junction of the lake with the Waikato river, where Tukairangi had hie whare and cultivations. Tukairangi died without issue, and had no surviving brother, but had a surviving sister, Te Urutoa. Urntoa had a son, Te Eruoho Mairangi, and the suppliant was hie only child now living.

Land Worth £5000. The land, said counsel, was valuable. being worth at least £5000. He proceeded to cite the various documents relating to blocks of land in which the Parakiri piece. was included to support the submission that this land was not granted ae native land, but came under the Crown Land Act, and that the Parakiri section wa* the. personal property of Tukairangi which descended by right to the suppliant. Aβ to the rights of other Maori* of the hapu in the property, the suppliant was ready to have that settled later by the Court.

Question Of Succession. When counsel had outlined his <m id<Miee as to right of cucccsmoii by the suppliant, Mr. Meredith said that it seemed to him the Court could not proceed until the Native. Land Court had made a. succession order in her favour. Mr. Gould argued that this could not be done by the Native Land Court in a case like this which challenged the Crown's title to the land. The title to the land had first to be decided. The question of succession would not in such caee be entered upon by the Native Land Court unless that question wadefinitejy referred to it by the Supreme Court. Hk Honour suggested that counsel \ should confer on agreement for reference to the Native Land Court the question of the real successors of Te Poihipi Tukairangi. The case, is proceeding.