KAIAPOI NATIVE RESERVES.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14029, 28 April 1911, Page 9

KAIAPOI NATIVE RESERVES.

THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

The Commission resumed yesterday ,-.t 10 a.m. Tautahu Hape, re-called by Mr Bishop, said he left Kaiapoi in 1863 for Otago. and returned in 183:3. To the Commissioner: People were constantly coming and going between Kaiapoi and Taiaroa Heads, where he resided. To Mr Bishop: Admitted being probably more interested in the wills being upheld than any other. J. If NY. Uru, born at Kaiapoi, bad taken a keen interest in the Reserves ! question. The land in question was never ceded to the Government, and vide Article 2 of tho Treaty of NN aitangi, 1810, the natives were to retain undisturbed possession collectively or individually of their land and estates. In the Ngaitahu deed, 1848. the natives wero further established in their places of abode and places for "mail angi kai" (food collecting stations). In 1859, Commissioner Buller, in individualising tho lands, said that the wives were to participate with their husbands, and it was also agreed that strangers should Iks included. It was understood no restrictions would exist between Maoris and Maoris. In 1889, when tho decision of the Appeal Court was given against the land being passed by will, he, with a deputation", interviewed the Hon. R. J. Seddon, who said lie could not interfero with the making of wills till it was proved to bo unsatisfactory, and then he would have legislation passed to remedy it. There was no dissatisfaction prior to 1899, when the trouble liegan in the matter of Fri Tehau. Tho Maoris, aftor Mr Buller's visit in 1862, had retained the "owhaki" custom of bequeathing property orally, only this was now •done vi writing. Witness knew the Rev. Canon (stack, Mr Commissioner Mackay, and Mr Justice Gresson had drawn wiils for natives. Less injustice would be done by keeping to the wills than by setting them aside and making succession orders. To Mr Bishop: Witness and his wife were holders of land by will. There wore, he knew, moro will holders than those who could benefit by succession. All the land for landless natives was r,ow disposed of. Henaro W. Uru, residing at Kaiapoi, agent, had put through about twenty or thirty probates of Maori wills. Itwas an indisputable custom that they had a right to will the lands. Tho fii-st objection he had heard raised was in 1899. He took a case to appeal, Uru v To Rangi in 1905. Witness got up petitions to the Government, and had a reply that the natives must got a ruling of the Supreme Court, and, if necessary, tho Government would legislate to give relief. Witness had paid duty to the Deputy-Commissioner of Stamps for probates of wills on land now decided to be restricted. There would be no means to obtain recovery of rents paid to executors. Before 1899 witness never heard any grumbling as to the will question. Tho Maori* had always mado their wills to natives. There were seventy-seven wills affected, and some of the heirs had willed again, and some succession orders had been made. To Mr Bishop: It meant more to him if the wills were valided than if they were resumed. Was not a native agent in 1899. He was not interested in any wills prior. H. R. Mamaru, of Moeraki, was interested in the Kaiapoi reserve. It was the ancient custom to will land orally by "owhaki." When the land was subsequently ceded to Europeans, he understood that the custom was carried on by written wills. Had heard no objections till recent years. To Mr Wright: Had mado wilte for Moeraki people who had land in Kaiapoi reserve, and never had any doubt as to the legality of the same till quite recently. Mrs Katarina Uru said her husband was an original grantee. Neither witness nor her children were put in the grant. She was with other wahines who interviewed Mr Buller, and it was then he said the grants should bo issued in favour of man and wife. NVhen the grant came, only the man's name was there. The women demanded inclusion in the but were not included till many of the women were dead. Mr Buller said that when the husband died the interest in the 14----acre lots should go to the wife. Mr Buller said the husbands should will it to the women. Her husband made a will to witness for life, and she had to leave it to her children. The Supreme Court granted her probate of her husband's will. There .was no dissatisfaction about wills till just recently. Mr Wright asked leave to call a witness for his side who had to leave. Granted. James Riekurs, Temuka, said in 1866 he had a grant at Kaiapoi, but did not understand lie could do as he liked with it. It was understood land was set apart for each one. and it should be retained by the offspring. He understood it could not be willed away. Heard no talk of the husbands being allowed to will to the wives. There was a certain amount of talk about the 'owhaki.'' In 1872 was the lessee of 500 or 600 acres, and was sued by Rangiora Road Board for rates, £30. He. consulted Mr Joynt, solicitor, who defended the case, and produced three grants which showed the lands to be inalienable, and that rates could only be recovered as against the Government, as owners. To Mr Wright: NVas a half-caste. His opinion was natives had no right to v.ili, hut only iv -'uwhski." ■*•'- ---mitted claiming interest in the will of Pita To Hori in 1872. The Commission adjourned at noon till 10 a.m. to-day.