Untitled

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3573, 31 December 1868, Page 4

In 1824 the three tribes were living at Te Kehu (Low and Motion's), and had also a settlement at Kumeu, the head of the Waitemata river, visiting as before Okahu and Auckland. The whole of the Ngatiwhatua tribes assembled for -some object not told at Aotea, on the banks of the Kaipara, and : immediately afterwards many of Te Taou and j Ngaoho settled at Okahu. In the early part of this year a party of Waikato J chiefs, headed by Te Kanawa and Te Kati, visited > the Say of Islands to make peace with Ngapuhi. After the usual speeches, peace was made, and one of the chief women of ICgapuhi, Matire Toha, was betrothed to Te Kati, who was Potatau'ij brother, as a pledge of peace and permanent friendship. The Waikato party, accompanied by the bride and sixty Ngapuhi chiefs under Rewa and others, started away from the Bay by the direction of Hongi to return the visit of the Waikato chiefs, and to complete the peace by formally reinstating the tribes of Waikato in their usual residences. When the party arrived at Takapuna they were met by Apihai at the the head of all Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Te Uringntu, who treated them courteously and supplied them with food from Okahu, where at that time they w«jre sojourning. The Taou took the Ngapuhi party up the river to Ongarahu, where they entertained them for three days. The Ngapuhi patty then went to Te Whau, dragged their canoes over the neck of land into the Manukau, and thence, pursuing the same route formerly traversed by Hongj, they passed up the Waikato. At Weranga o Kati, an island in the Waikato river below Tuakau, they saw a party of Ngatipaoa, under Kohirangatira and Paraoarahi," living in a pa ; and, arriving at the pas of the Waikato on the Mangapiko river, » branch of the 1 Waipn, they there found another party of Ngatipaoa, part of the survivors of. the original inhabitants of Mauinaina. The Waikato chiefs of the pas were Te Kanawa and Te Roherohe, and the chief of the Ngatipaoa refugees Te Rauroha. The Ngapubi chiefs remained two years at this place and then returned to their own country. At th« end of the year 1824 Te Taou and Ngaoho were living at Te Kehu, at Horotiu (Queen-street), and some at Okahu. Most of these facts I have taken from the statements of Matire Toha and Ruka Taurua, one of a Waikato tribe and the other of Ngapuhi, independent 'witnesses who have no claim to the estate under Investigation and no interest in the matter. 1825. Hetaraka tells us of an expedition of Ngatipaoa who started from Waikato about 1825 and assailed the Ngapuhi at Whangaruru and defeated them; and at a later part of the year Te TJringutu, under Hnkopa Paerimu, who with Kuka Taurua were making a fiahing visit to Motu Tapu, were attacked by Ngapuhi, under Te Rori, *nd many many of them killed, amongst whom was Fiopiotahi a relation of Paerimu's. Twenty women were captured. Apihai with the tribes Ngaoho, and Wakaariki, with Te Taou, arrived in the night time and were urged to renew the contest, but declined, and retreated with the TJringutu to Kumeu. A party, of revenge was shortly afterwards despatched by Te Taou and Ngaoho, accompanied by Ruka Taurua and Te-Ao-o-te-Kangi at the head of some Ngatitahinga (Waikato) • they advanced to Whangarei, and planned and executed a very successful aurpriee against the Parawhaa (Ngapuhi), who, being from the position accessible and handy, seem to have been selected as objects to attack whenever an utu account wanted a victim to balance it. Many men were killed and 40 women taken prisoners, with whom they returned to Kumeu, A short time afterwards Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Uringutu, to the number of two hundred, settled permanently at Okahu, and made this estate the headquarters of the tribes i 1 hey had been living here a year, when the battle of Ikaranganui took place. Prom the time of the battle of Mauinaina, Tamaki district had been entirely abandoned by Hetaraka and Ngatipaoa. 1826. In the year 1826 Hongi Hika again appears in our history. At the head of a large party of his own tribe he advanced into Kaipara, where he was joined by Te Parawhau under Tirarau. A battle ensued at Ikaranganui, in which all the Ngatiwhabua tribe of Kaipara vrere engaged, and in which they sustained a severe defeat. The Ngaoho and Apihai's people were not there, all of them still being aC Okahu, but Apihai himself was approaching the field of battle to take part in the combat, when he met his friends in full retreat, and he fled away with the rest. Hongi returned with his people : and the TJriohau, and Ngatiwhatua proper, and other defeated tribes retreated to Waikato Heads, where they left their women and children. Returning unexpectedly, they suddenly attacked Te Pararohaa, at Otamate*, and out of a patty of eighty killed seventy and cap. tured ten, who were subsequently liberated. The bead of Tuhoihoi, the chief, was taken to Waikato, and the flesh of the rest. Thus impedimented, Ngatiwhatua fled rapidly up the Waikato, and sought refuge with Ngatipaoa in the before-mentioned pa of Eauroha's, at the Mangapiko. Ngatipaoa invited them in, and the same day Hongi, who had been in full pursuit, arrived. Aud now came one of those Btrange combinations and commingling and separating of parties which are so constantly occurring in this history, and which are so utterly unintelligible to us. Ngapuhi were joined by the Ngatihaua (Waikato), and the allies desired the Ngatipaoa to leave the pa in order that they might attack Ngatiwhatua. Te Rauroha and his people complied with this request, and the allies immediately stormed the pa, and killed many of the Ngatiwhatua. After tbis adventure, peace was made between Ngatipaoa and Ngapuhi, and many of the Thames tribes returned from their refuges, and took up their abodes at Waibeke, Taupo, and elsewhere, occupying also the other side of the Firth • but they do not appear to have been perfectly assured of their safety in these open placed, for there is evidence of their constantly moving backwards and forwards during the whole of these unsettled times. Te Taou and Ngaoho were not concerned in these affairs. Although Apihai's tribes had not joined in the battle of Ikaranganui, they seem to have known that it wouldhave been unsafe for them to await the arrival of Hongi; whether on account of their near relationship to Ngatiwhatua, or on account of their doings with the Parawhau, we are not told. At any rate they determined that ib was noc wise to Btay here, so they assembled at Waikomiti (Little Muddy Creek), and fled up the Waikato to Puke whau on the Waipa, and after sojourning there a short time escaped to Mahurangi, where a party of Ngapuhi lived, who were friendly to Apihai. At this time the Upper Waikato country, Maungatautnri, Cambridge, &c, was in the occupation of Ngatipaoa, Ngatimaru, and the Thames tribe?. In f acr, here the great body of their people seem to have been living. The close of this year found the whole of this isthmus without an inhabitant. Ngatipaoa had been driven from Mauinaina, and were living on the banks of the Mangapiko and Horotiu. Hetaraka was wandering about, sometimes in Waikato (his mother dying abuut this time at Rangiaohia), *nd sometimes in the Thames districts. Ngatiwhatua were thoroughly broken, attacked first by Ngapuhi, and then by Waikato, for wh'ch purpose their friends the Ngatipioa politely stood on one «ide, And seemed likely to share the fate to which they and their related tribes had previously subjected the Waiohua. The Taou and Ngaoho were in refuge near Mahurangi, subject to constant attacks and dangers. Ngatiteata, Ngatitamaoho, and all the Manukau tribes were in pas and strong places near the head waters of the Waikato river, or the banks of the Waipa ; and Te Uriugutu were sojourning for some untold reason with a party of Ngatipaoa, who seem to have been living at Whaka,tiwai and Ponui. No tribe was in its own place. For many years there is, in truth, a hlank in the history of Tamaki. About 1832, Mr. Cowell, sailing from Waihopuhopu, at the head of the Hauraki Gulf, opposite ShortUnd, to Mahurangi, did not see a single inhabitant nor observe a single fire. From Whakatiwai to Mahurangi the country was quite empty. The dread of Ngapuhi was so great that the people thought of nothing but securing their personal safety, and the mountain ranges and inaccessible or little-frequented places were then more sought for than fertile lands. "All the tribes were being driven backwards and forwards," said Mr. Co well. " Everything was in confusion, and no one settled anywhere," was Mr. Marshall's recollection of this period. " All the men were wandering about the face of the earth," was Warena Hengia's evidence. Hori Tauroa Baid that all people thought of .was to save their Jives and get guns. And Apihai asked, " How could a man settle anywhere with the fear of Ngapuhi?" Ngatipaoa seem to have gradually formed a large settlement at Waihopuhopu, but they never returned to their old place Mauinaina, as they allege J, because the land was tapu from blood ; most likely because, although they had made peace with Ngapuhi, they had a natural feeling that this isthmus — the highway of all war parties— was not a desirable place for a tribe to live in in such evil days M those, I therefore propose to discontinue the narrative ityle which I have adopted^ and. merely

refer to a short chronological epitome which I have prepared, of events which happened during the interval from the battle of Ikaranganui until people reappear m Manukau. And I broadly state the opinion of the Court that nothing that happened during thw dreadful interval can in any way affect the ownership of this land. As the title was in 1826, so it would: be when the history is resumed in 1835. I will therefore here adopt my epitome EPITOME FROM 1827 TO 1534 INCLUSIVE. It thus appears that during this interval the fortune of war had been gradually but constantly turning against Ngapuhi. Waikato, having procured arms through Mr. Co well and other traders at Kawhia and Waikato Heads, had been rapidly rising into prominence ; had successfully repelled all the late Ngapuhi invasion ; and had even inflicted some defeats upon that tribe in the North ; had carried their arms down south to Taranaki ; and had, by 1834, assumed a military position which entitled them to be considered the dominant people in this part of New Zealand. They had, moreover, completely driven Ngatipaoa with much loss out of their possessions m Upper Waikato, and had made peace with Ngapuhi. When, therefore, in 1835, Te Wherovrhero, the most powerful chi-f of the di.trict, proposed to conduct the M-mukau t.ibes to their old places, and locate himself amongst them, theie was litt'e chance of their being molested by any of th« armies which had for 12 years made this isthmus a place where it was impossible for anyone to live. Moreover, Christianity had begun to make some progress, and, wearied and worn out with war, the people appear to have hastily and gladly embraced the new religion, which, while it offered them a proipect of a happy life after death, secured to them, at any rate, a tolerable certainty of keeping their bodies in peace in this world until the time came for thfm to die naturally, and without being converted into the "heads," which one of the witnesses so frequently alluded to, and by the number of which he appears to have recollcoted events. 1835. - Accordingly we find iv 1835 Te Wherowbero, with his own personal tribes Ngatimahuta, Ngadapakura, &c. ; brought down Ngatiteata, Ngatitamaoho, Te Akitai, and the ether Manukau tribes.along with Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Ngatiwhatua. A small party came first to prepare for the greater migration, stopping on their way at Waihekura and Kaitangata, places oa the Ngatitipa's land in Waikato, where they put in crops, left them to grow, and came on to Manukau. Finally Te Wherowhero settled with his own people at Awhitu, as a guarantee of the protection of the Waikato to the rest. Ngatiteata took possession of their own lands at Awhitu, Ngatitamaoho returned to their places at Pehiakura, Te Akitai to Pukaki, and the other Manukau tribes to their former residence". Apihai and his people took possession of Puponga, where they built a.pa called K&rangahape. * In this year the missionaries, Dr. Maunselland others, took up » station at Puriri, near the mouth of the Thames. Possibly at their instigation, otherwise spontaneously, a meeting of tbe Thames and Waikato tribes was convened for the purpose of formally declaring peace. This peacemaking was necessary, not only on account of the great war between the tribes which had terminated in the expulsion of Ngatipaoa from the Waikato valley, but also on account of the attack made by Te Aua, Ngatitamaoho,and other Waikato-Manukau tribes, assisted by Apihai and some Ngaoho; upon Ngatipaoa at Whakatiwai. The object of this attack was to balance an " utu '' account, and in no way concerned the land under investigation or any other land. The Ngatipaoa side say that this account had been previously squared, and that the killings which happened at this attack were murders. The other side deny this, and say that the balance was against them previously, but the deaths of the three men who fell wound up the account, and the whole proceeding waa " tika." Whether it was so or not is of no consequence as regards this suit. Nor 1 can this peacemaking or any other peacemaking at which no reference is made to land, and where the previous quarrels had been purely personal, and no land had been seized or occupied which had been previously in the possession of the other side, be regarded as a matter which this Court is called upon to consider in deciding ownerships of land. If in consequence of w»rs a tribe abandons a place in tbeir possession because it is too close to tbe hostile tribe, or too open to attack by them, and the hostile tribe takes no possession, and the land simply lie 3 vacant until better times come and the previous cwners return, nothing concerning the title can be founded on Biich evacuation j and the peace when it is made merely affords to the temporary emigrants the assurance of tbeir personal safety on their return to occupy tbeir former residences.- -No doubt that is the native custom. And not one of the witnesses on any side asserts that at any of the peacemakings any conditions or stipulations were made or proposed with respect to any land except Mr. Fairburn's purchase. Kahukoti's conversations will be noticed hereafter. In December, 1835, Kahukoti, chief of Ngatipaoa, and Ta*aia, chief of Ngatitamatera, arrived at Tamaki with Dr. Maunsell ; and Te Wherowhero and Kaihau, on behali of Waikato, went over to Puneke, on the Tamaki river, to meet them. Here peace was finally concluded. Urunmo and atarangi, of Te Taou, accompanied Te Wherowhero ; but Apihai and Ngaoho, and the bulk of the people, remained on the Manukau side, and did not join in the peacemaking. About the same time Apihai and his friends sold to Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of a Scotch company, a vast tract of couutry, extending from Munukau Heads to Tamaki, and thence along the Waitemata to Brisham's mill on the West Coast. Mr. White said this transaction occurred in 1833, but I think ha must be wrong.

1836. The aucceeding year, 1836, Apihai and his people were living at Karangahape, but they commenced to cultivate at Mangere. Later on i» the ye»r, they built a pa at Mangere and another n't Ihumatao. Another meeting, said by some to be a missionary meeting, took place at Otahuhu, at which the peace between Ngatipaoa and Waikafco was confirmed in an informal manner. Te Taou came to the shores of the Waitemata, and began to cultivate the land about Borotiu (Queen-itreet), Mani^aina was still unoccupied and desolate. Captain Wing made a chart of Manukau harbour, which he produced in Court. It showed Mr. Mitchells house as then standing at Karangahape. Potatau's people commenced planting at Onehunga, and Te Tinana, of Te Taou, cleared for cultivation Kangitoto, nearOrakei. In April of this year, Uruatno and Watarangi, with 60 of their people (Te Taou), went to Orere, near Taupo, on a peacemaking visit to Kabukoti, chief of Ngatipaoa, on account of the Whakatiwai killing*. They made presents as payment for the dead, performed the customary ceremonies, and finally made peace. At the great meeting at Tamaki, when peace was made between Waikato and Ngatipaoa, it was stated that Oruamo requested Kahukoti toallowTeTaou to occupy Okahu, to which he replied, " Presently ;" and this conversation was renewed at this Orere visit. This is what passed according to the evidence of Timothy Tapaura, a Whakatohea slave who was present. Oruamo said to Kahukoti, "Iwnnf you *o » S ro ' tl ""' OKadU 9nali be li^cd upon by us ;" to which Kahukoti replied, " Ye<?, light a fire there for both of us." This account is directly denied by all the claimauta' witnesses. None .of them, however, were present except W arena Hengia. He says there wa9 a conversation, and his account of it is this : Oruamo said to 1 Kahukoti, "My friend, nay fire will now burn at my place." Kahukoti replied, "My father, to whom does your kainga belong ?" Now, as the Ngatipaoa allege that Vhis permission given by Kahukoti > was the only ground of the undisturbed possession held by Apihui of this estate for more than 30 years, it is evidently necessary to inquire into this conversation. The circumstances were thtsa :— After the usual salutations and ceremonies had been performed, the visitors were shown to a large house in which they took up their quarters. In the evening Kahukoti came to visit his guest, according to the usual custom, and then this conversation happened. W arena Hengia is the only witness on Te Taou side who knows anything about it, and there are two on the other side who state that they heard of it, and that it was as detailed by Timoti Tapauta Now, it must be remembered that the last time Okahu waa permanently occupied was the year 1826, at the time of the battle of Ikaranganui, at which time Mauinaina had been three or four years captured, and its occupiers dispersed amongst the Waikatos. What had happened in the interval between the two peoples ? Nothing, except the attack at Whakatiwai, which was the occasion of the present meeting. It must be remembered that at the fall of Mauinaina the tribes were in perfect »mity, and the year previous to that attack were fighting together against Koperu's army. What possible reason was theie then for the alleged permission to be asked? If we go back to the time anterior to Koperu, and take the idea most; favourable to Ngatipaoa, viz., that both people were then cultivating there, we can find no reason for asking permission to return to that status, especially as Ngatipaoa had totally abandoned that part of the country. It might: possibly be suggested that the "tapu"from Mauinaina extended over Okahu, and that Te Taou wanted the assent of Ngatipaoa to breaking the " tapu." But this will not help us, for the "tapu," if it erer extended over Okahu, bad

been broken and disregarded long before, for, as we have seen, the whole tribes Te Taou, Wgaoho, and Uriugutu were living and cooking there, at and before the battle of ikaraDganui. But I don't believe that Okahu ever was or could be included in the Maui-* naina "tapu," for no blood was shed there. Moreover, the whole tale as recounted by Ng*tip»oa is not only quite inconsistent with'Maon custom, but; also with Ngutipaoa's present case. Hetaraka Takapuna is alleged to be the putaki of the Ngatipaoa title, and yet he does not appear to have been consulted — as consulted he would have been if his title had been recognised then as now, and i£ such an event had really happened. Moreover, there is no pretence made of any previous meetings or consultations of the Ngatipaoa chiefs to discuss such an important question. The well-known Maori habit seems to have been entirely forgotten, and a chief 13 stated to have answered a question of which it is alleged he had had previous notice at Otahuhu, and the consideration of which be had himself adjourned, without a single consultation with the tribe in the interval, and the first knowledge the tribe had of this chief's determination is a proclamation made in the morning outside his house. Besides, if Uruamo had wanted to make such an important demand, would he have trusted to the accident of Kahukoti's coming to his house ? Would he nob rather have sought an inter/new with Kahukoti wherever he could be found ? And when the first request wa« made at Otahuhu, would not Ngatipaoa, if their prtaont case was then believed in by themselves, have consulted with Hetaraka in the interval. The Court cannot i ecept either the account given by the Ngatipaoa witnesses of this conversation, or the interpretation put upon it by them. That some such conversation did pasa I quite believe. I think that Te Taou and Ngaoho were aware that the Thames tribes still nourished feelings of revenge on on acqount of the killing of their friends Rewa, Hauruia, and Kapatahi, at Whakatiwai j and that they were perfectly correct in this belief is shown by the fact that even six years later Ngatiwhanaunga gave Haora Tipa a padd c and two tomahawks, called after their dead men, as a sign that he Bhould go and avenge their deaths. And it is quite natural that so long as this feeling was known to exist Te Taou and Ngaobo should be unwilling to locate themselves permanently, -with their women and children, on the shores of the Waitemata, where they would tie peculiarly open to attacks and surprises from Ngatipaoa. who, although they had suffered greatly, were still a powerful tribe. One can well understand, therefore, how.after peace had been formally concluded, and the ancient feeling of amity restored, the Taou chief would exjlaim to his host, when he came to pay him a friendly visit in the eveuing, " I can now return without anxiety to my old home." To which the other would reply, •• Certainly, why should you not go to your own place ?" And even if Kahukoti had replied, " Yes, return there and light a fire for both of us," I can see nothing in the words beyond the polite expression which is usually given by the Maoris to their language when talking with persons of rank with whom they are in friendship. When travelling with a Maori in his canoe, he never speaks of "my canoe ;" the phrase is always " to taua waka," " the canoe of us two, " and if his guest Btnokes he will g ; ve or ask for "to taua paipa," whether it belongs to himself or to you ; and if you live on his land,, he will speak to you of "to taua kainga," without the slightest idea of conferring any title upon you. And this expression — " tahuna he ahi ma taua," — would (even if utpd) mean no mora than a civil way of expressing that he should be glad to see Taua living at Ikahu, for he would be then often able to come and see them, and accept their hospitality. The Court, then, being of opinion that no importance whatever is to be attiched to this conversation of Kahukoti, and that it cannot be construed into acknowledging a title on one part, or giving a temporary leave ef residence on the other, I shall make no further reference to it. At the end of this year Te Taou and Ngaoho were cultivating at Okahu.

1837. In 1837 a pa was built at Ok&hu, under Watarangl and Uruamo, of Te T*ou. It is itated that this pa was built against Ngapuhi (Te Parauhau), which, is probable, as Apihai's people seemed to have been engaged ia along series of hostilities -with them, and they were the only enemy with whom peace had not been made ; and it will be remembered how Eruera Fatuoiie, a Ngapuhi, described his refusing; ti land to cook food at Mechanics' Bay, when pacing along these shores in a. boat with Governor Hobson, preferring rather to cross o<-er to Takapuna, from faar o£ Apihai, whom " ho bad not yet seen," as he says. 3838. In 1838 the principal place of Apihai's people still appears to have been Mangere, but they were permanently domiciled also at Onehunga, Auckland, and Okahu. In this year Potatau took up bis permanent residence at Onehmigi.

1839. In 1839 the Okahu tribes cultivated Official Bay, (Waianki), and planted peach trees -where the Provinoial Council Chambers now stand. Ngatipaoa appear again in this district, but for what purpose is not shown. Te Remara saw two hundred of them at Maraetai, when ho cime up witk Captain Clendon in the ' Columbine.' Be also Baw Apihai, Te Tinana, Te Reweti, Paerimu, Uruamo, and Watarangi, and all the chiefs of Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Uungutu completely settled there, " The food of that place," he says, " had been cultivated long before the fences were made and the houses built." He then describes going in a boat with Taipau, a relation of Hetaraka's, to mark out the boundaries of land proposed to be purchased by Captain Clendon from Hetaraka's tribes, Ngatikahu aud Ngatipoataniwha. The boundary commenced at Takapuna and went on by the Wade to Whangapitro*.

1840. On the 29th of January, 1840, Captain Hobson landed at the Bay of Islands. In February following the Treaty of Waitangi was made, and on the 21st of May the sovereignty of her Majesty wai proeUirned over the British laland of New Zealand. The remaining part of the history of our case is of little importance, and I trill therefore again read from my epitome.

KGATITJEATA AND NGATITAMAOHO. The evidence differs as to whether Ngatitata or Ngatitamaoho were living on this land before the time of Governor Hobson. I think that it is most likely they were living here, that is, that numbers of the tribe came and resided here, fishing and assisting at the cultivations, but returning to their own " kaingas " after periods of varying leogth. And I think that this practice has been continued nearly up to the tim* when the greater part of these tribes went into rebellion. We find tbat during the interval between 1840 and 1850 they came several times in parties, and on the occasion of the battles of TauraDgaru.ru and Ihumatao the whole tribes settled at Okahu for ft short time. The Cou-rt places no value onithese acts of occupation. It is an ordinary custom for pj£r%ons. who have, or pretended to have, no claim whatever the land itself, to cone and reside upon estates of other tribes, when on terms of amity with the owners, especially when they are connected by intermarriages of the present day or by anppßt-ry Thn modern intermarriages betwepn Apihai's people and members of the Ngatifceata tribe are proved to have been numerous, and the ancestral relationship is admitted, and i« very clearly set forth in the pedigrees. This principle has been recognised by the Court on many occasions in all parts of New Zealand, and we do not now intend to set up a new rule. An understanding was clearlj arrived at previous generations that each of the tribes around Manukau, which were formed from the intermixture of intruding tribes with the original occupiers of the soil, should possess arid occupy certain fixed, and, more or less, well-defined, portions of the country ; and it would entirely frustrate the object for which this Court was established, if we were to ignore ' these territorial Arrangements, and throw the ownership of land into a state -of confusion greater than that in which we found it. Occupation in modern times of land, to which the title of others is admitted by such occupiers, caa confer no title on them, unless the occupation is founded on Borne previous " take," of which the occupation can be reg»r<ied as a consequence, and partly as a proof. And this original " take " must be one which the Court can recognise, and which would be consistent with ordinary rules governing and de&ning Maori custom. Mr. Ifeiketh sets up as such " take, " cr ground of title, the ancestral relationship of Hori Tauroa and his other clients of their two tribes to Apihai, and other members of Te Taou, ftgaoho, and Te Uringutu. Te Atairehia was the Grand-daughter of Hua, the great ancestor of Te Wainhua. She married the great Waikato chief Tapane, the ancestor of Te Wherowhero ; and from the different offspring of this union there have resulted in the present day — Apihai, after a descent of four generations ; Hori Tauroa, five generations ; Aihepene* Kaihau, five generations ; and Matene Baketonga, six generations. Now, all these person", in tfaeir several generations, except Apihai's ancestoro, lived with and formed members of other tribes, into which they intermarried, and to some of which they have given their names (exp. Ngatiteata), and their descendant? now hay« their lands in the estates of those tribes. If their present representatives are allowed again to return and claim a share in the lands which their ancestors lsft, there will be no such thing » ©Ten »

tribal right in any part of New Zealand. The -whole of the tribes are related by blood in a more or leu remote- degree ; and, if any Mich principle 1 as that advocated by Mr. Hesketh were sanctioned, New »Zealand would become one vast inheritance, of which all the Maoris in the. island would be the joint owners. And this great ■ principle of ancient and gradual separation of tribes and tribal estates was very strikingly recognised by many of the witnesses. Hapimana Taiawhio ia a much more direct and true representative of the ancient owners of the soil than any of Mr. Fesketh's clients except Maki, and he said he had no olaim, although he has lived on this place, and followed Apihai's fortune, during nearly the whole of a long life. Another old chief, Te Keene Tang»ro», is similarly very pare blood of the old owners, and has lived here permanently all his life, but asserts no claim, and says that lhaka Takaanini would have had none had ha been alive; yefc his mother was the great-granddaughter of Papaka, who is the ancestor on whom Hoii Tauroa founds his case. Watarauhi Tawhi* was another witness with similar claims and anceitral connections, but he asserted no claim. In fine, I say that the Court cannot recognise such claims as these, without disregarding all its precedents, and ignoring the objects for which the Legislature constituted it, and overriding its previous history and decisions. It is scarcely necessary, therefore, to notice that, during these descents, the conquering Taou came in and took this part of the country by force of arms j and that, if those anceitors, who are now set up, had remained on the land which is now claimed through them, they would either have been taken prisoners or killed, UDleiS they had been allowed to intermarry with the conquerors, or to be received at members of their tribes, as Te Tahuri did, and Mokorua did. In any of those cases the present claimants would never have existed. . - The only point in the ease of NgatUeata and Ngatitamaoho which is of any value is that Panl Tuhaere, the nephew of Apihai, seems to have disregarded this rule on the occasion of the confiscation of the Ngatitamaoho's land at Pehiakura by the Crown. He applied to the Government for compensation on account of Ma ancestral interest in that land, and received from the Crown Agent (not through the Court) a sum of £150. If the Court were certain that it had all the facts of that affair before it, it would make an order for the return of that money, for we think it was wrongly obtained. " Qui sentit commodum sentire debit et onus." But we cannot consent that a successful act of imposition, as we think ib to be, judging from what is before us, should influence this Court to adopt the principle involved in it, and abandon its own rules of action, with the idea of dispensing a perfect justice, even beyond the limits of this suit. The presents made on the sales of land about here do not seem to the Court to have carried aDy admission of ownership of the land gold. It is customary for M.ori chief* when they come into the possession of property immediately to distribute it among their friends, especially amongst those from whom they have received or expect to receive benefits, or to whom they are ' ancestrally related. And there is no doubt thai Ngatiteata, with the other Waikato tribes who returned with Pobatau, bad rendered considerable services to Apihai and his people. These services were requited by the gift of a piece of land near Onehunga to Potatau, of Pukapuka to Te Kati his brother, and of Remuera to Weteri Tekauae. The above remarks apply equally to Paora te Iwi. The Court is, therefore, of opinion that Hori Tauroa and Paora te Iwi, and their co-claimants, have no interest, according to Maori custom, in the estate under investigation.

MAKI AND TE WHBORO. The cage of Wiremu fee Wheoro and H»wir» Maki are stronger than those of Ngatiteata and Ngatitamaoho. Maki, the father of claimant, seems to haTe lired the greater part of his life with Apihai, and only left Okahu a short time before his death. There he seems to have made his home. He was the second cousin of Te Wheoro, and grandson of Waikahina, the sister of the great Kiwi. This woman seems to have escaped the massacre of her tribe, and to have fled South to the protection of a tribe called Ngatipou, living about Pokeno, whose chief took her wile, and these claimants are the results of the union, Wiremu te Wheoro is a member of the tribe Ngafcinaho, a hapu of Te Wherowhero'a tribe, Ngatimahuta; and having (to use Mr. Gillies's expression) cast in his lot with them, he mus-t be regarded as a member of that tribe, and his ancestral claim will not avail. Had his father returned, and been admitted amongst the conquerors and intermarried with them, he would, at far as the Court can see, have had as good a right to be considered and treated as a member of Te Urlngutu or the " collection of remnants" as Eruena Paerimu, whose right is admitted. But hiu forefathers preferred the greater dignity of their Waikato connection, and ho must now be excluded. The case of Maki is more doubtful. He doei appear to have-livd with Apihai for a great number of years, and his claim apparently it no way inferior to Paerimu's, except that his fathers did not interroariy with Apihai's iribe as Hnkopa Paerimu did. Paerimu's wife, who gare birth to Eruena Paerimu, the claimant, was Titoki, of Te Uri-o-te-ao-tanhi-rangi, the hapu of Ngaoho to which Tokarorae, who.se name was often mentioned, belonged. But this distinction in their status is very important. Moreover, Hanira Maki, the present claimant, does not appear to hay© himself coalesced with Ngaoho at all. He has entirely cast in his lot with Ngatipou, his own tribe at Maketu near Pokeno. It it a very singular fact, to which the attention of the Court was called by Mr. MacCormick, that, though he was in the Court for many days, ho never appeared as a Witness in support of his claim. Te Wheoro seemed to found some of his right to this land on the assistance and support afforded by Waikato to Apibai when they wera reinstated by Te Wherowhero after the days of Ngapuhi; but whatever claim the Waikatos may hare on thla ground, and even if their claims were not compensated by the gift of land of which we hare had evidence, it is quite clear that Te Wbeoro is not the person entitled by position or connection with the tribes who gave assistance to urge them. The Court is therefore of opinion that Wiremu to Wheoro and Hawira Maki have no interest, according to Maori custom, in the Orakei estate.

HETABAKjL TAKAPUSTA AITO HGATIPAOA. The name Ngatipaosi* has been and will be uced as meaning all the 'lhames tribes, unless some other tribe is iudicatea. And Here I must state the opinion of the Court that, after the irost careful weighing of the evidence, and consideration of the arguments used by their counsel, we are quite unable to discover any connection, either in their J grounds or their, incidents, between the claim of Hetaraka M and that of Ngatipaoa. Kapetawa's conquest has already beeu discarded ; but, even if it had not, Hetataka does not profess that Kapetaiva was an ancestor . of his. Kapetawa was sir generations below the time when the Thames tribes branched off from Tainui, the ancestor of Ngatitai, and the direct ancestor of Hetaraka; and four generation! below Haora- . 4oi*ugi, tae great nephew of Tainui, through whom Hetaraka claims another line of ancestry dirgotfy connecting him with Ngatipaoa. Be could therefore have got no status from Kapetftwa's conquest, even if it had been a conquest;. And Mr. Gillies said that this was the only conquest on which he '" relied. Hoterene Taipari mention? a conquest of Te Waiohua by tfgatimaru on account of Kahutautto, who had been murdered by them j but he adde, ' "This is a different man from Hetaraka'a ancestor." That they were occupying the land together before Hongi's time in no way connects their claims, unless it can be shown th*t the grounds or " take" of occupation, were the same, or had an intimate connection. Hetaraka asserts thathe ia the representative of Te Waiohua, the ancient possessors of this country ; but he also asserts that he is the sole representative. It is true that this statement was ' often varied ; for instance, in one place he says, "There are plenty of Waiohna. leftp- Ngatipaoa,' \ Ngatimaru, Ngatitamatera, ISgatiwhan'aunga. There are Waiohua amongst Ngapubi.* • These Waiohua own this land. There are 100 there. They hare a new name now. Ngatiwai of Whangaruru are the " people." And using the term in a similar dense, he " says in another place, "At this time Waiohua, under ETapetavra, were living at Orakei, under Hefaewa at Taurarua, and at Okahu under Parakotia," forgetting that according to his own showing Hehewa lived three generations ago, Kapetawa seven. In another place he says, ''There are no Waiohua up besides me known by that name." . Now it is impossible soberly to urge that Ngatipnoa - are interested in this estate 'as representatives of the old Waiohua, when we have living amongst us and appearing in this Court the lineal descendants of Kiwi. And if Kiwi was not a Waiohua (although the grandson of the man who gave rise to the name), and if all his tribe wh.o were conquered by Te Taou were not Waiohaas, I cannot understand who the true Waiohuas w«re at Kiwi's epoch. Het«r*k» says they were living at Mount Eden and at Taurarua; but the circumstance continually recurs to my mind that when asked who was the chief, or who built the pa, or who was in it, the answer is always tha same :Te Bangikaketu or Te Hehewa. I cannot discover that Hetaraka, from the time of Bangikakefcu and Kiwi to Hongi's time, has ever men-

tinned the name of a single Waiohua »•» keeping possession of "this great tract of country, or dojn? anythine, except these two men. Waiohua, accor..- > ing to him, kept their ground at Mount Kden au«l Taurarua when the whole country was bein* overrun hy a powerful tribe, who came to av*nge the murdors of their friend*-, at whioh Rangikaket-t assisted ; and yet, although questioned on the subject, he is silent as to any other persons composing the tribe except these two men.-; I merely refer to this ■übject now to show that the- view previously «- pressed by the Court must be followed as the correct one, and that Kiwi and his people were the true Waiohua, although equslly entitled to be cal.ed N«aiwi. Ngatipaoa do not claim to be descended from them, and thnre are no other Waiohua to be descended from that I can discover. Hoterene Taipari gate a very ourious version of this part of our aubject, varying from that given by anyone else, asd clearly inconsistent and absurd : "The ancient inhabitants of the country from the Tamaki to the Whau were T« Waiohua. The Ngaiwi wtre from To Waiohua. The lands of Ngaiwi, were I don't know where. The people from Taranaki to Te Whau were killed by the Thames tribes. The pas of Ngaiwi were on that side of Taranaki towards - Waikato. The pai of Waiohua were at Taranuki on ' the Hauraki side." . It appears to the Court to be a position which cannot be controverted that the several thing! brought forward to su|>por,t the joint title of Hetaraka and Ngatipaoa must hare some connection with each other, and some sequence or oono»tinary dependencies, but we have been unable to discover any relation of the sort. I can well understand that, if in times before the English sovereignty was proclaimed here, and English law wan supposed to exist, Hetaraka had asserted a claim to this estate, and bad succeeded in getting these powerful tribes to support him in maintaining it, their union with him would have been of the greatest vahie, for forewould have decided the contention. But such con- , siderations will avail nothing now, and this Court has already decided, in the great Hawke's Bay case, that it would recognise no titles to lan 1 acquired byintertribal violence since 1840. HGATIPAOA. Takfng first, then, the caie of Ngatipaoa, this claim is grounded on — I. DeHoent. IL Conquest. 111. Possession and occupation, I. DESCENT. Most of the witnesses said they war* ignorant of the ancestry' through which they olaimed this property ; and Ido not remember that any one, except Hetaraka, attempted to set forth any pedigree. The answer, usually, was, "I claim through the anoestors mentioned by Heteraka." Now, thi* pedigree, montly prepared -by Mr. Mackay. and proved by Hetarak*, contains the names of the prinoipal chiefs of, the Thames tribes now alive; and also shows the connection with Ngatikahu and Ngatipoataniwha, and with Ngatitai. The direct line is the genealogy of Ngatitai ; and it is taken np even above Tainuj, from whom the name, according to Hetaraka, is derived. 2&NW, with the exception of Hetaraki's father, grandfather, and g teat-grandfather, with whom Ngatipaoa pretend to have no lateral or descending connection ; and except Tarakumikumi, who, with his wife and all his children, was killed, and Kapetawa, who returned seven generations ago to settle in "Waiheke, there is not a name in the list of chiefs of any person who is alleged to have lived on this property, excluding of coune the "present generation. It was attempted to show that Hnao-* kaiwaka was the aame person as Hua, the grandfather of Kiwi, but the attempt did not succeed. It will be remembered that, when Hetaraka was asked to give his Waiohua pedigree, he commenced with Tangamakaia. This man was stated by witnesses on the other side to be a Ntaiwi, and the father-in-law of Hua, but tietaraka was unable to continue, and aaid he wanted to begin again. The genealogy which be then set fotth is appended to this judgment, and is the one to wkick I hare lately been referring. And we think it has nothing what* ever to- do with this land, and that the. ancestors mentioned in it never had, or pretended to have, any claim to it ; and, with the exception of Tarakumi and Kapetawa, none of them have'been shown ever to have been on it. Nor (except as above) doe* it ■how any lateral connection, with any person or trib« that ever possessed or lived on the land, or any relationship with any member of the Neaiwi or Waiohua * tribes. In fact, it is the genealogy of distinct tribes, who lived in different places, and possessed differept land*. Haora Tip* and the witnesses relied on this ancestry for their claim by descent. The Court therefore thinks that this ground of their claim fails. 11. CONQUIST. The affair of Kapetawa has been disposed of, aid I cannot find evidence of any other conquest. I thought at one period of the oase that I oould trace something in the doings of Ngatiwhanaunga which indicated a right, acquired by force of arm*, superior to that of the oth»r Thames tribes, bub the idea was not borne out, Subsequently it was stated by witnesses, and finally by their counsel, that their claims were all equal. in. OCCUPAXIOIT. No modern occupation oan avail anything in establishing » title that has not for its foundation or authority either conquest or descent from previous owners, except of oouwe in the case of gifts or voluntary concessions by the existing owners. Such ocoupation is called by the natives " he noho aoa iho" — equivalent to our word "squatting." As above ■tated, the Court is of opinion that, whilst Ngatipaoa were living at Mauinaina, and were at amity with Apihai and his tribe, individuals of Ngatipaoa nsed to come over to these waters, and make small cultivations, for fishing purpose*, at Okahu. The other side deny this "horerawa," 'Apihai says. But whether they did or did not is of little consequence — the possible gronnds for a right so to cultivate not having bnen established ; for, as previously observed, the cultivation of land by this generation must be taken merely as an evidence of a right obtained by the cultivating or conquests of antecedent genera* tiont. The residence of Ngatihura and Ngatipare hapusof Ngatipaoa scarcely needs remark. There wa«, in our judgment, not the slightest evidence or appearance of any intention or > thought of asserting a right when these people went to Okahu, ox that their going was founded on a right. If any such notion had been in the minds of Ngatipaoa it is not escaped prisoners of war like Mohi te Puitai, or returned Ngapuhi slaves such as Natanahira te TJrupa, or second or third-rate men like Hemi Kaihi, who would "have'been sent, but some powerful and influential chief like Patene Puhata, who, as we know, conducted Mr. Clarkes attempted survey. Thes* aots of cultivation 'and residence were of a trivial and transitory character, much lei* worthy of attention than those of Maki, whose case the Court has already dismissed, although backed up by wellknown and admitted ancestral relationship. Like him, when they were " lick nnto death," they generally mof ed,*after the Maori custom, to die on their own land at Waiheke or elsewhere ; or, if* they died on the place,- they were not buried there. In fine, their residence had all the jnanif«»t*tions of a sojourn, and of nothing else. Moreover, sundry other persons have lived there both before and since the time ofHSongi — some of them nearly all their lives, such as Te Keeae Tangaroa, Hspimaoa. Taiawhio, Te flemara Taubia, Pairama Ngutahi, and Watarauhi Tauhia, who were intimately related to Apibai's people, and yet reoognise Maori custom, and set np ntf claim. ' Other persons, too, of strange tribes, suoh as Raniera Taupape, of the Barawa, in the North ; RnkaTaurua, of Ngatitipa, in Waikato ; members of the Ngaiterangi, of the Waikato tribes, of Ngatiporou, and" even people of tk» South Sea Islands, and a considerable number of Te Arawa, who are there domiciled at this present time, have been residing there, but make no pretence of founding a claim to the land upon suoh occupation. The - trnth is that, from it* proximity to Auokland, Okahu is a convenient place f or Natives ' to live on who desire to have intercourse or trade with -the Europeans ; and Apihai seems to have extended free and unquestioning hospitality to all who chosa to oomt. I stated, during the progress of the trial, that the Court had made a practice not to attach much importance to the purchases made by the Government as evidencing any title in the settlers. It was the duty of the Land Purchase Commissioner to obtain land that could be immediately and peaceably occupied by settlers ; and when a chief came to demand payment for an estate, backed by ' » suffioient following, it was found more expedient to satisfy his o.l»im t n »P to contest it, The rule which has governed the Court on this point is thai, if on land being sold to the (government a tribe made no claim, it might be received a* a very itrong evidence that it had none, but if it made a olaim, and it was recognised, that fact affordsd very •light evidence that the claim was a good one. The • all the land from Tanrarua to Te Whau affords, to my m^nd., no evidence that the pale was a rightful one : on, the contrary, I think ft was not , Tfle sale of Tajunakj by Potat»u, to whiph My. Gillies compared the sale by Ngatipaoa, was much better justified, for we have had evidence in this case of a great conquest made by him of the people of that country; but even that sale did not Mail the GoVernment auob.

'Jim ' Kupu" «>f Herua as it i» died -that i-, the permission allege to hare been given by KJakotaii p.,t fo.th by Ngatipaoa m tbe* reason why they have daring m .re th.n a quarter of a j century -mate „o , rot*t a«ain.t ApihaC*. continued o«»P»t*»of simply beoause^Apihai is , olaimmg » °?? f w " fjji It is not a matter «f much moment, but it certainly il remarkable that neither tui, permission .not anything connected with it, or with the and was. ver alluded to at the return vuitof Kahtjoti to Okahu or on the occasion of Haora Tipa visiting Ap.hu and Drwentina him with the paddle and tomahawk, tvKSZivesof hi. d«d relations, or on the other Serous occasions when the chief* of the tribe. -saw eaoh other. Hetaraka seem, to have treated the '•Kupu* with lew re«pect, for he agitated about bis claim in early days, but the Court ii not told whether he connected Ngatipaoa with it. The caw of Hetaraka Takapunahas been very carefully considered, not only because the Court felt itself called upon to devote more than usual <."»• "d thought to a ca«e upon which *o much labour has been expended by the parties, but aljo because it desired to disover or to recognise thefaots or principle, in the case which called forth so much energy and *ktll. But th. Court tins made the endeavour in vain. Of all the claims which we have been called upon to enmsider, we think Hetaraka 8 is the weakest; and tlie only obscurity that could po»i,ibly surround it is cau.ed merely.by the immense man ; of UcU which have bsen connected with it, and which render it difficult to aicertaiu \U re >1 character. It ii impossible to review all the evidence brought forward -in support of Hetaraka's claim, but as he wa* himself examined, and gave a full statement of bis case, I will as brwfly aa poiiible notice tome thiugs that he .aid, because th» case as i»ut forth by him differs in important particular, from that elaborated by bis connad:—He commences with the early time., aud ■t.te. that the fiwt inhabitants of this country were destroyed by Ngatiwha ua. 4'4 ' Ngatiwhatu *ib the tribe that £ know attacked Waiohua ; I me»»n To Taou. Te Taou destroye I Ngaiwi, also NgatiTrhanaunga, — .I*o for ano<h*r reasen. I dont know of any others." And on crossiexaniination th. next sitting-day he stated that the Thames tribes, naming them all, are the people who slaughtered the original inhabitants, and ad<itd that b« had be«n scolded in the interval for making tha previous utatement. •« I wa. born at Orakei.' 1 . Two witnesses, one of whom was grown up and both living when Heta was bjrn, contradict this. Paraminasays : " I know where Hetaraka w^s born. He was born at VVhaitere, in Kaipara. I was living there at the time. He w»s gtown up when he left Kaipara. He left Kaip&ra on account ef a squabble with another boy, Te Po. They quarrelled about fern root. Then he and his father Purehnrcbu loft. Tbere Is no doubt about his being born there. I knew Metrraka'i mother Tahikura." She was of Ngativrbatua, hapu TeniaUrahurnbu. Hefceraka admits having hve.l with his mother at Kaiuara ai a child, and thut his^iother liy«d thare before nhe was married, and that in fact hi. father went there to marry her, and remained there som. time, but came down to OrAkei, apparently to give birth to him, returning immediately afterwards. This may be true, but Hetaraka says also that his brothers and sisters were b->rn there. Now,' remembering that hi states that his father and moth»r were married, at Kaipara, and remained there some time after their marriage,; that he was the first-bora, and tliat they were again at Kaipara when he was kneehigh ; that, as he says in another place, " She was a youDg woman when she went there, and an old woman when she came away— when they had to leave about the Te Po quarrel ; that they then went to le Weiti, and from there to live amongst the Ngatipaoa, whence they went to Waikato, where his mother died ; it is difficult to see how the latter part of the statement as to bis brothers and si.teri can be true. I thiuk the evidence against Heta'* statement as to his place of birth is to be preferred, though not as d«cisire as that relating to Hehewa's burialplaea. On cross-examination the following question, were put and answers mad* : — Has Te ILawau any daim to Orakei ?— No. Ha. Te Taou any claim t—Ho. Has Te Taou any claim to any land about heie, from Onehunga to Waitemata ?— Kwe i eke. Formerly they had not, but ia consequence of their fighting they have. Did Te Taou owi Te Pukapuka f — No. Or Purewa !— No. Or Que»a-atreet ? —^o. Or Remuera T— No. Did Apihai's people own any of these? — Formerly, until now they have no claim. Whoie were ths lands from the Tamaki to Te Whau before the Government came f — Ngatipaoa' ». Did not Ngatiwhanauaga join f— Yes. Is the claim of Ngatipaoa, Ngati whan aunga,Ngatltamatera, and Ngatimaru of equal goodness, i.e., on the same grounds!— Yes, there is one " tak..* Have they, always had this claim T— Y.s, long before the fighting. Had Apihai and his people never any claim?— None whatever. Now this appears to the Court extravagant, and represent* a position that very wiaely was not taken by Hetaraka's counsel. " Ngatipaoa lived at Moumt Eden in Eangikakatu'a time. They livad at Mount Hobton in Bangikakatu's time and till Ngap.ihi came. They liveJ at Taurarua in Itangikaltatu's time and until Ngtpuhi camt." He t.Us us in another place of T. Hekswa having held Tauraru* with his Waiohua, an* having evacuated it aud handed it orer to Ngatiwhanaunga. In either case, the question occurs to my mind " What became of the defsnders— whoever they were —when Ngatiwhatua assaulted the plaoe and killed all the inhabitant* ?" How far did the Waiohua estate extend f—ltf — It wint to Wakatiwai and on to Gape Colville. Do you receive any money for the gold licenses ? i bey are a long time considering the mattes be* fore they give me my share. And then he stated that he had made no appearance at the Land Courts recently held at Kauaeraaga. It appears that Ngatipaoa are not as ready to admit the Waiohua title, to the Thames country as they are to the more westerly portion of the e.fcatt asdescribed by Hetaraka. He then goes on ; " The Waiohua estate goes north to ths Wairoa at Tauranga, and sojth to Paletera on the Waikato river. The Waitaha and Ngariki come into that." And in reply to th. question, " Why dou't you occupy that estate t" he says, "Th. original inhabitant, were slaughtered and the intruders kept possession. lam the real owner. lam the only Ngatitai left." There would be great difficulty to reinstate Hetaraka in these dormant rights. Who is the true representative of Ngaiwi now »li T e?— Te Hapimana, Heta, and the children of laaac. Paerimu would repre.ent Ngaiwi equally with Te Hapimana. But! Paewmu is admitted by himself to be a Waiohua, and by all Apihai's witness, to be the true representative of people originally conquered by Te Taou. Did you ifot say at the -prerlous trial fcb.a# you were a Ngaiwi ?— 1 said *». Who built Taurarua Pa f — Eangikaketu and Te Hehewa. Did Te H.hewa live there ?— Yes. Why did he leave it !-He left i«, and gave it to Ngatiwhanaunga with the land. The pa was attacked. It was attacked by Ngapubi, and by no one else. Mr. Gillies admitted that Ngatiwhanaunga had no ground of claim superior to or different from that of the other Thames tribes ; and all the Thames witnessei, as well as Hetaraka himself ia anothsr place; said that the " take" was the same, and their olaims were all equal. In setting forth an attaok on Taurarua by Ngapuhi, and concealing that by Ngallwhatna, Hetaraka tells u. of an event whioh is nowhere else disclosed, and ignore* another about which there is no doubt. You said you\rerellving»at Orakri before Ko« perus attack T— l lived there from the time I war born mntil Koperu came. Had you no other home all that time ?—■ l QMd to reside thtre and at Mauuuiaa Pa. He here forgets his previous statement that he was living at Kaipara with his mothe* from the time she was a young woman until she had become an old one. What is the history of N|*tipaoa<s owoerskip of Taurarua?— Wajohua anoestowhip, the conquest by Rapetawa. Ngatipaoa b»inf driven out of Waikato, was this byT»Wah*roa?— l did no* «»y th.y w«r» dwfin off ; we' came quietly away, I often withed, during the progress of the trial, that there had been a jury, so that the Court might have been relieved of that part of their duty which is compriaed in determining facts, and judging of the credibility of witnesses j but, havfag to'porform this function, I ought to sxpreas thft the Assessor felt equally with myself that Hetaraka's eyidenoe made on our minds an unsatisfactory impression. The question of Hetaraka's ancestry, as set forth in his genealogical ttble, has already been partially dealt with. ♦ .&

The Courb io of opinion that hii pedigree is in no Wa/ connected with nay tribe who ever held poaipg■icm of this land, or of any part of Tamaki on this aid* of the river. It ii the pedigree of NE»titai, Ngatipoataniwha, Ngntikah*, and partially of t!>e Thames tribes. It will aetve to explain the couneotion existing between Hetiraka and those tribes, but is of no other value, *■ far •■ thia cas« ia concerned. Mr. G-illiea urged the Court to disrfgarJ pedigree! ; and I cann t but think that this wa« the wisest course to pursue regarding the interests of his olienta. > The question m to whether Hetaraka is a representative of To Waiohua at all ii very doubtful. Many witnesses say that he is, and that Rangikaketu was * Waiohua— some of them entitled to treat credit in matters of this lort.iuchas Paora te I wi;— but others assert, in a very decided manner, that he 'has no olaim to be so considered — that he "is a Ngatitat, Ngatikahu, and Ngatipoataniwha, «n«l nothing •lie. It will be remembered how his father, grandfather, ««d great-grandfather have been described as each of a different tribe ; and Warem* Hengia put dowu Purehurehu as * Ngatikohua, a tribe not mentioned by any one else except Hetaraka himtolf. Wataranlii says, " I say distinctly tbafc Hetaraka is not a Waiohua." andKeene Tangaro»,<n old chief of Ngatikihu and Poataniwha, Hetaraka's admitted tribes, says, "Hetaraka is not a W»iohua." I think that the truth lies betwoen them; , Te Rangikaketu was, in the judgment of the Oouft, a chief of Ngatitai, perhaps the piinoipal chief^ and also of Ngatikahu and .Ngatipoataniwha ; and there i* evidence enough to male* v* incline to the belief that at the time of Kiwi his tribe had already bran conquered by Ngatipaoa, and that he was living with a;few followers with Kiwi in the character of a refugee, well and courteously treated, nod still regarded as a chief, but that he w not a member of T« Waiohua, not connected with them, except so far as Ngaoho (in which name Ngatikahu w ould be included), Ngaiwi, and Waiohu* are all connected together. But his son, Te Hebevra, seems* to have married into the tribe. His wires were Huiatara of the Ngatikohua, a kapu of Te Waiohua, and Teka, another WaiohuA woman. This faot will explain what Warena Hengia meant when he called Hetaraka a Ngutikohua from his grandmother's tribe, and this connection will entitle him to be considered -a Waiohua, but she mint have beea a slare or a refugee, if alive at the time of the inTasion of Taou, or the offspring of on« if born afterwards. Te Rangikaketu disappears after the conquest, except in Hetaraka'u evidence, who makes him still to be living in apa at Mount Eden, and build' ng another, at Taurarua. But we do not believe this statement We thiuk that he fled with the other surviving fiiands of Kiwi, and th*t ho went to his relatives the Ngatipaoa and remained with them. Te JSehewa also, with his Waiohua wife, took up his abode »• with that tribe, and we accordingly find him actively engaged o» Ikeir side at the battle of Arohe. It in not difficult to understand why no title is founded on this Waiohua Dtarria;*, though, if his grandmother was a woman of rank, and Hetaraka and hi* grandfather and father had remained with the conquerors, and been admitted into their tribe, he migbt— especially after Purehurehu'a Ngatiwhatua marriage — be entitled to be considered an "Uringutu." This course was not taken, however. They cast in their lot with Ngatipaoa, and never appear to have resided away from them, except during Parehurehu's courtship, and some few years after his marriaje ia Kaipara. From that time to tha present, with the exception of the, two short interval* hereafter mentioned, the family have coutinued with Ngatipaoa. Even if Bangikaketu were a Waiohua, he must hare shared the fate of th«t people. He seems to have escaped with his life, and so far had a better lot than his friend Kiwi ; but nothing die seems to have been left to him, as far as the Court can dUaoTer. Hetaraka's claim by oonqueat is clearly absurd. He i« not a descendant, according to his own showing, fr.nu Kipetawa ; and, even if he were, it would avail nothing, for that wo* not conquest, as previously fhown. The occufatioa ef Okahw by himself and his father wan of no more significant a character, as far as this case is concerned, than tfcat of Ngatipaoa ; and the "take," failing the occupation, such as it was, mush be unproductive of result. Indeed, his occupation would be less significant than that of Ngatipaoa, for the family would have a right to cultivate according to Maori custom, on Ngatiwhatua land, so long as they dil not annex themselves to a strange tribe, though no longer ; and no doubt Apihai would extend this right orer his own l»mJ« to his Ngatiwhatua frieads, as, indesJ, vre see he has extensively done. After the time of th* English sovereif nty Heta came again, in Governor Hobson'i time, and re« mained three weeks with T« Tiaana, living in a t»nfc mad« of a sail. He cam* again in Governor Grey's time and plan tad one season. Warena tells us that the produce left for sale to the townspeople was one basketful of potatoes. WhenTauoma was sold by NgaWpaoa they gave Httaraka three greenstone', and that ia all he ever received from the sale of land by that tribe. Even when they sold his ancestral teiritory — from Taka« puna to Te Arai — they gave him nothing ; ao he sold it over again himself — which seems to have been the uimal and oorrect thing to do. It is very remarkable that in all the land trana*ctions by Ngatipaoa from Te Whtu to Taufann, Tauoma, and north of Takapuna, Ngatipaoa never^consulted Hetaraka. Whem asked about these sales himself his answer i* alwaya the same—" I was at the Thames." It was not until theie trials that the Tbamei tribes appear to have diioover>-d that Hetaraka was the true owner of the country, and tbab they were u behind his back." He was nsver dealt with at all by the Government for lands south of Waitemata, though bis title to the North was recognised. And the important fact is this, that he never i emomtrated with the Government about the Ngatipaoa selling bl« land from under him except as regards that on the north of the river Waitemata. Much was made of a greenotone slab called Wakarewhatahuna, which it was alleged carried with it the " mana" of Tamaki, and possession of it was evidence of the ownership of the land. It appsared that this greenstone was used as a gong in Kiwi's pa at Onetr«e Bill. It occurs to me that this gong must have belonged to the chief and people of that pa, with whom Hetaraka disclaims any connection. But, disregarding that point, I never in my experience in this Court heard of such an evidence of title being beiag brought forward, and should be very reluctant to admit a principle which would be so very unsafe as a guide, and so liable to abu«e ai a document which carries with it no intrinsic evidence, and which must depend' for its force, and even its character and interpretation, on eral testimony and tradition. But the necessity io decide this point does not arise. It belonged, Hetaraka telia us, to Teke, a wife of Te Hehewa. She was the last person seen with it, «nd she hid it— Hetaraka does not know where. So that Hetaraka has not the possession of this document, and it cannot be produced, nor does Hetaraka appear to be entitled to the possession of it, for the woman T«ke was not his grandmother, but another wife «f Te HehewaV. However, it was buried last otntury, and with it must be taken to be buried whatever mana it posietsed. Nor do we hold thai the title to Tamaki will be revived for the benefit of the parson who may happen hereafter to find it as Kahotea was found. Ths newspaper correspondence Is not before the Court, and tbe interviews with Mr. De ThUrry and others resulting from that correspondence do not, in our judgment, affect the aspect ef the title as it was before that period. The evidence as to what pasted is conflicting. The jealousy whi <h is still evident between the pure Taou and the Ngaoho, and more marked by the Uringutu, appears to hare been mere demonstrative then than at any other time, and it was fostered by Mr. De Thierry ; but we do not think that any concessions were made by Mr. MaeCovmick's client*. Where the accounts differ, we* prefer that of the claimants ; amd we hold that no alteration in the status of the partiei oould have been tken made, except by voluntary and mutual agreement, and certainly no such took plaot. The Court quite agree* with Mr. Gillies that Hetaraka has kept his olaim alive. And we also concur that the Court should "imagine itself to be •itfcing in 1841," and we bar* en<L»vour©d to do so. Doubtless the 30 years' possession by Anih,a.i must be allowed to have weight, bu.t principally because we find that it h.as haeh mndisputed exoept by whose right to dispute has been considered, and because we find that that possession was founded on anterior rights which hare never been ovfrtly questioned until now (except as above-nailed by Hetaraka). We oan easily imagine eases where •qually undisturbed nossassion for an equally long period would avail nothing in this Court, where there is nothing on which it is based ; and we bave even Woh oaf ci appearing in this trial, where indeed no olaim is urged j as, for example, Te Hapimana and Te Kesnc Tangaroa, It would be a Tery dangerous doctrine for this Court to aanotion that a title to native lands oan be created by occupation since the establishment of Eigliih sovereignty, professedly of English law, for we should then be declaring that those tribes who had not broken the law by using force in expelling squatten Oh their lands must be deprived pro tanto of their rights, The precedents •it til foe ttht> w»y, a*4 Ire foondri la reaio^

J Ami as no Coutt exisW in tho ounlry by which such tie«pa«sis could be tried and the true ownership of land ascertained, a peaceful protest against the occupation, or an assertion of a hostile or concurrent right made at a sufficiently enrly period, roust be held to have been all that the counter-claimant was ie quiied to do to keep alive hisi light*, and indeed all th*t he lawfully coukl do. But giving Hetaraka the full benefit of thin doctrine, and imagining ourselves to be Bitting in 1841, we think ihat his case would be uo stronger then than 1b is now. In facl, the Court is of opinion that that ha never had any title to or interest in tnia land, nor »yen a scintilla juris; and that he has no more now, .' His claim is therefore dismissed both as conoerns himself, and all who claim by, with, or under him, AtlHil'S CLAIM. Tha olftlm of Te Taou, Ngaoho, and T« Uringufcn will now need short notice. The epitome of the evidence read with the table of ancestry, and combined with the patt of tbiu judgment which has before, will sufficiently explain their status. But it ought to be noticed that of leventeen n>tive\witnetm called by Hetaraka not one ia out of their o,wn tribes or disinterested, while of twenty native wit- , nesses called by Apibai nine have* no claim oil the estate. Their ca*e ii briefly tnia : Te TaoUx-a tribe resulting from 4he union of » Northern tribe with an ancient tribe called Ngaoho— came down from Kaipara* for reasons wh^ch hare been previously staled, the -.tribe^ -that occupied this iitbmus, entered 'lnto pbssessfah'-'of the empty country and settled down p9rmtfiWly, and here they "have ever since remained, except" during periods of hostility,-, during which the surrounding, land was evacuated as being uusafe to lire in, always returning as soon as the danger ceased. Shortly before and* about tho time of the arrival of Governor* Hob>ou, European evidence is imported into the case : Mr. George Graham, Mr. Shearer, Mr. Robertson,' Mr. Smith, Captain Wing, Captain tJ. X. Symonds, Mr. Blake, and Mr. George, all of whom — with one exception, Mr. George Grakam — more or less corroborate the fact by their recollection of different circumstances that Apihai'o people, under their ge*er»Hy-known name of Ngaiiwhatua, were th« sole resident natives here and on this part of the shores of Waitemata at the lime of the Governor's arrival, and that they bad houses and cultivatioms at Auckland and at Okahu- The arrival of the English power found them domiciled at Okahu in undisputed possession, and ,thus they hare remained eve* since as the dominant lords of the soil. The Court has found that there are no concurrent -rights or titles which ought to diminish their estates ! or interest* ; and it therefore decides that one or more certificates of title shall issue in favour of these , tribes, or in favour of such persons comprising them as chall be-detormi«ed upon on hearing further evidence, or as shall bo agreed to amongst the members of the tribes. It only remains for mo to tharA the learned eoumel engaged in this case for the great time and' c&re which they have bestowed upon it, and for the very complete and able manner in which it was placed before the Court. I also thank them for the patience with which they have listened to this long judgment. I could not, satisfactorily to myself, have mad o it shorter without the expenditure of more time than I have at my disposal. I cannot suppose »hat every fact which I have detailed is or that the Court bus in all cases accurately Stated the evidence ; l.ut I beg the parties to believe that the evidence has beeu read and re-read with great care, aud thut in all probability those particular portions which they may think to be wrong have iv fact been takeu from other and contradictory testimony. The vast value of the rights at issue (prored'in evidence to be £50,000), no leas than the example of the several counsel, demanded this care from the Court.