Native Land Court.

Hastings Standard, Issue 105, 27 August 1896, Page 3

Native Land Court.

A DECISION IN FOUKAWA. The following is the full decision in the Poukawa case: This land was brought before the Native Land Court in 1867 by the wellknown chief Te Hapuku, who then set up Te Whatiriiipiti as his ancestor. The block then included Koparakore and Te Kena, but why Te Hapuku went back so far as Te Whatuiapiti for bis take has not been explained. Counter-claims were then set up for parts of the block, but Te Hapuku's general right was not disputed. After the Court had heard evidence and was prepared to complete the case, a difficulty arose about the names for the order, and the case was adjourned for a future Court, the counter-claimants being instructed to get the boundaries of their claims shown on the map. In the following year Koparakore and Te Kena were surveyed and passed through the Court by Ahipene Te Tawa and others, the ancestor for Koparakore being Paina, and Turahui for Te Kena. But the bulk of the original block —presumbably the portion which Te Hapuku claimed for himself—was not then brought before the Court j and a few years afterwards Te B&puku took steps to have it declared a reserve, as we are informed by one of

wi tnesses, that it Inight be exempted from the operation of the Native La;;d Court, anil kept as a p'ace for his own people. Nothing further was done until recently when the land cnine before the Court upon the application of Arihi Te Nahti and others ran I of the Public Trustee ; upon this occasion the ancestors set up are To Rangikoianake, a direct descendant of Te "Whatuiapiti, and also Turaluii. The other takes being pcimar.ait occupation mana, and power to hold the land against a ? .i comers. The land being well situated, especially valuable for Maori settlement, and one of the few remaining areas in Hawke's Bay the title to which has not been established, it is perhaps only natural that people with very shadowy claims should try to set a footing on it. A great number of counter-claimants appeared, but by a process of amalgamation the.y were reduced to nine, conducted by Ihaia Tipuna, Nikera Te Koro, liopata Tiakitai, Rota Mohika, Itiia Maiu. Mr Watt, Mr Scannell, Mr A. L. IX Fraser, and Iniatara Kingi. The two last-mentioned cases being olfshoots from the claimants case, and set up probably from motives of jealously, or a fear that the parties concerned would not meet full justice at the hands of their principals. The claimants case was conducted by Mr Lougliiian, assisted by Messrs Blake and Fox. The Court does not think it necessary to review the evidence given in support of some of these counter-claims; they are utterly untenable, and the cases conducted by Ihaia Tipuna, Nikera Te Koro, Ropata Tiakitai, Rota Mohika, Inaia Maru are dismissed without further comment. We think it us well to say here, that, taking into consideration all the circumstances connected with this piece of land, we must, in deciding the ownership, be guided mainly by what we consider permanent occupation ; for this reason very little reference will be made to ancestry. With reference to the claim set up by Mr Watt on behalf of Pane Te Urihe and other descendants of Tahamate, it does not appear that Tahamate played any important part in connection with this land, nor did any of his descendants. If any of them ever lived on this block it was not by any rights derived from Tahamate. Pane* Te Urihe, now a very old woman, does not appear to have lived at Poukawa except as a visitor, and she relies upon the occupation of her brothers, Tend in and Paurini ; that these two childless old men—who were owners in the Pukehou Block adjoining —did live on Poukawa and were buried there is not denied, but it was by reason of their relationship to Nikaore Te Wharepouri, who took them there, cared for them in tiieir old age, and buried them. This would not assure any right whatever to their sister Pane, nor those claiming with her. Referring to the claim of the descendants of Te Tawa, conducted by Mr Scannell, Akenehi gave evidence as to occupation and burial of relations on the block, but the claim seems to be based principally upon the important position occupied by Ahipene, the eldest son of Te Tawa, in connection with some of the adjoining lands, and also upon statements made by Te Hapuku in former Courts, which statements are said to be admissions of Ahipene s rights in Poukawa. Against this it is asserted that neither Akenehi, her brother Ahipene, nor any of their people lived on this block ; that the burial place at Te Hanke was not regarded as an exclusive burial place by the Hapuku family ; that Ahipeue's claims were limited to Koparakore and Te Kena ; and that when Te Hapuku spoke of Ahipene's rights to the land and his receiving rents for the grazing of sheep, he referred to Koparakore and Te Kena only, and not to Poukawa. Upon referring to the evidence given by Ahipere at the first hearing of Poukawa, when it included Koparakori and Te Jvena, we find that he said, " I do not claim over the whole block, the parts I claim are Koparakori and Te Kena," and that in the year following he had these lands surveyed and passed through the Court. Having in view these facts, it is impossible for this Court to come to any other conclusion than than Ahipene then thought that he was getting all the lands of his ancestors, Te Paina and Te Manawakawa to which he considered himself entitled. We do not think that either Mr Watt's or Mr Scannell's clients are entitled to admission to Poukawa. The claims set up by Mr Fraser on behalf of the children of Ihaka Motoro, and by Triata Kingi for certain descendants' of Tnrahui, were quite unnecessary, as tiie persons they represent are admitted by the claimants. In conclusion, we have to say that we are of opinion that Ragikoeanaki was the paramount tupuna for the land, and that we do not believe in the boundaries described by Kereama; and, further, that what remains of, the original Poukawa Block was reserved by Te Hapuku for the benefit of his family and followers, whose rights have never been questioned in any way during at least thirty years of continuous occupation. The Court, therefore, will make its order in favor of the persons whose names have been handed iji by Captain Blake, including that of Urupere Puhara aud such other persons whose names may have been omitted, or who shall be found to be entitled. And the Court directs that a list of such persons, with the relative interests proposed for each, will be submitted with the least possible delay.