Native Land Court.

Hastings Standard, Issue 341, 7 June 1897, Page 4

Native Land Court.

OHITI JUDGMENT. Before Judge Gudgeon and Pirimi, Assessor. Judgment in the Ohiti case, delivered at Hastings on the sth day of June, 1897. Before entering into the main questions at issue between the claimants and those persons of the counter claimants who appear to the Court to have a right to this land we will decide on the merits of two of the claims which seem to require but little comment. The first of these is the claim of the N'Hinepare descendants of Parekura, whose right has not been made apparent to the Court. We do not say that these people have not ancestral occupation, but we are of opinion that they have not exercised any right on Ohiti for the last four or five generations. Whatever there may have been of occupation during the last 60 years on the part of these claimants is directly traceable to relationship or marriage with the real owners of the soil. Kateriua Hira admits that she has not occupied Ohiti since the Whitiotu fight in 1831, and she is unable to show that her right has been kept alive by the residence of any near relative, or indeed that any member of the N'Hinepare tuturu has had occupation. The Court is therefore justified in assuming that this claim depends on the undisputed fact that several places on the Block are named after descendants of Parekura. But as it has not been shown that permanent occupation followed the naming of these places no importance can be attached to the fact. The N'Hinepare case is therefore dismissed. The second case to which we have referred is that of Keita Ruta, who appears on behalf of her section of the N'te Ituaiti. We have struck out the name of Hirani te Hei from Keita's list, inasmuch as she is recognised as a daughter of Pirika Toatoa. and as such may be included in the claimant's case. There is no evidence before this Court that would justify the presumption that the N'te Ruaiti of Keita's list; that is the descendants of Te Kori, have ever occupied either Ohiti or Matatanumia. They were, it is true, admitted into the Omaliu block as owners, but we cannot regard that fact as any proof of their right to either Matatanumai or Ohiti. At the first hearing of the Omahu block Matatanumia was awarded to those descendants of Mahuika and Tarahe who could show occupation. At the re-hearing disturbing elements were introduced, and it would seem that tho Court could not decide to what ancestors the land belonged, and therefore awarded it to a list of names. Under these circumstances it is impossible to say to what portion of Omahu the N'te Ruaiti lists apply, or whether they had obtained their right to that land from any ancestor whatsoever. Hoana Pakapaka's evidence as to the right of Tarahe is in conflict with the testimony she has given in this case. During the Omahu hearing she said that Tarahe had a right to Ohiti, she now says hehad none, and she excused her perjury in one or other of these cases by saying that in Omahu they had all combined to fight Mrs Donnelly and the N'Kahungunu and that Mr Brougliton and Paramena te Naonao had urged her to give this false evidence. Mr Brougliton has denied this statement, and we are of opinion that he never did urge Hoana to swear falsely. As against Keita Ruta's case we do not consider it necessary to refer to those voluminous extracts of evidence given in Omahu, Awarua and twenty other cases. It has not been proved that the N'te Ruaiti of Te Kori have ever occupied this land, and it is not clear that they even occupied the same lands as the descendants of Tuterangi, Mahuika or Mataora. Clearly they had no right to Wahakaea, and this fact has a special significance which will be mentioned later on. We dismiss the claim of Keita Ruta.

We will now consider the claimants case as presented to the Court, and before making our preliminary remarks thereon must compliment Mr Loughnan on the very able manner in which he has conducted his case. Probably in no previous case in the Native Land Court has evidence 'been so keenly analysed. The case with which he had to deal was, however, inherently weak, and not even Mr Loughnan's ability could conceal its weak points.

The "prima facie" case was opened by Hana Hinemanu, who claimed for the 14 persons in the list the exclusive right to 3230 acres as shown on plan No. 68 and known as Ohiti. Hana claims that she has derived her interest and right to this land from two women—viz., Te Taha and Rarafriai te Rangi. descendants of Mahuika and Ruapututu, and declared that the " take " to the land was derived from the latter. This claim has not altogether been repudiated, for Wiki te Ua, the chief witness for the claimants, had also a hazv impression that Ruapututu had a right, but speaking generally both "Wiki and her husband have claimed the land as belonging to the Mahuika branch of the family, and have also introduced another child—Auihi—as having a claim on this land.

The singular element in the case is, however, the fact that Wiki admits that she has absolutely no grounds on which to base her claim from Mahuika. That although she had lived with her uncle, Noa Huke, for a period of at least 35 years, she had never heard him or indeed any of the old people say from whom they had derived their right to Ohiti, and inferentially had never asked such a question. Her explanation is that she set up the ancestor Mahuika because she had often heard Noa Hiake speak of this particular ancestor, and therefore felt in her heart that she ought to claim Ohiti as his land. Now we do not think that any more extraordinary statement lias ever been made before a Native Land Court. Noa was a chief but his chieftainship was derived from two sons of Tarahe, not from Mahuika, therefore we may presume that Wiki often heard him speak of Tarahe or of Tuterangi, as that man owned the adjoining block (Wahakaea). Why then did not Wiki's heart tell her that Tuterangi was the proper ancestor to set up ? Can any reasonable being with any knowledge of Maori peculiarities believe that a man with the rank and ability of Noa Huke did not know to whom this land had formerly belonged or that he never talked the matter over with his near relatives or the old men of his " hapu " '? Any man with any knowledge of Maoris will know that it is the duty of the old people to teach the younger members of their family the history and boundaries of all the lands claimed by them, and that this duty is never neglected. Mr Broughton has informed the Court that Noa was exceedingly anxious that the title to this land should not be investigated during his lifetime, and we know that the present claimants have in every possible manner delayed the investigation. It may of course be suggested that as these people were in actual occupation o!

the land they had nothing to gain by bringing it before the Native Land Court, but the Maoris are much too shrewd to be satisfied with'such a precarious tenure. They must have kngwn that they were allowing their old people to clie off, and in tbis way were losing reliable witnesses. But it seems to the Court that they were also aware that they were gaining in another way ; they were every day strengthening their position by length of occupation.

There is another peculiarity in this case and that is that although the claimants do not know to whom this land belonged they are quite certain that Tarahe had no right. It may well be asked how they know this, and the answer might be that which Noa has given in evidence. "It is true that Tuterangi owned land on both sides of Ohiti, but he did not own that block because his name was not mentioned in connection with it." This probably means no more than this, that Noa had not heard that Tuterangi owned Ohiti, and it may mean much less. We have not yet exhausted the eccentricities of this claim, for although Mahuika is set up as the ancestor to whom this land belonged yet the rights of Pukeake and other leading descendants of that man are strenuously denied, notwithstanding that they are admitted as being the leading occupants of Matatanumia, which land is acknowledged by the claimants to be the land of Mahuika and absolutely one block with Ohiti. No explanation whatever is offered to show why Pukeake and Hoana's ancestors have no right to Ohiti, the land is simply claimed for Auihi, Te Talia. and Raramai Terangi, apparently for no other reason than this that they are the " Mahuika " from whom the claimants are descended. That the descendants of " Mahuika tuturu " held an inferior position on this land may.be inferred from tho facts connected with the killing of Te Potaoroa and others by the descendants of Tarahe, but the Court does not thereby come to the conclusion that the N'Uranga had no rights on Ohiti. The inference would, on the contrary, be, that they had a right, but that being an inferior people they were punished for breaking a rahui which Tauranga set up over certain eel weirs at the request of Hori te Kaharoa in order that the latter might possess the eels thereof. Te Potaoroa broke this rahui and was promptly slain by Te Kaharoa's people to avenge the insult. To complete the confusion of the claimants case we have Noa Iluke's admission that Mahuika owned Matatanumia, but that he was not clear as to his right to Ohiti. Now as I have already shown, the claimants, whose sheet anchor is Noa and his family, assert without reservation that Matatanumia and Ohiti are one and the same land. I have also pointed out that to suppose that Noa did not know from whom he derived his right to Ohiti is to suppose that he did not own the land. There is, however, an easier solution of the difficulty. Noa was at that time giving evidence as to Matatanumia and foresaw that which actually happened, viz., that all of the descendants of Mahuika would be put into that block and therefore it might become an inconvenient precedent whenever the Ohiti land came before the Court; this, we think, was the cause of Noa's doubts as to the ancestral rights of Mahuika. It is to be gathered from the evidence of Wiki te Ua and her husband that the only reason they have for asserting that certain of the descendants of Mahuika have no right to this land is the assertion that these people never occupied, but tliey both forget that whenever it has been shown that a certain ancestor did own a certain piece of land then the presumption must be that all of the descendants of that ancestor have a right. This presumption may be rebutted. But those who do so must show how and in what manner the people to whom they object lost the rights which the Court will presume to exist. This has not been done. While on this subject we may lay down another ruling and that is that whenever a claimant has proved descent from the ancestor found to be entitled to the land by the investigating Court, and such person is found to be a permanent resident of adjoining blocks very slight occupation or assertion of right will be deemed sufficient to establish his claims.

Mr Loughnan contends that because Renata's occupation was very strong on Malatanumia and (as compared with that of his clients) weak on Ohiti, therefore it is clear that Renata received his share of the Mahuika estate in the former block and ought not to be admitted as an owner in the latter. This is the actual subject matter of Mr Loughnan's contention. It is difficult to conceive that this argument was ever intended to be seriously considered. It must, however,be answered. The Court holds that Ohiti and Matatanumia are one and the same block and that residence on any one portion of the block will give the resident a right over the whole block unless it can be shown that there were Hapu sub-divisions on the block which would bar a .member of one Hapu from encroaching on the boundaries of another. No such boundaries have been claimed in this case, and on Mr Loughnan's own showing Renata and his family were most unjustly treated by the Omahu Rehearing Court, inasmuch as certain of his clients who had comparatively small occupation were admitted to tlieMatatanumia lands on equal interests with Renata's natural heirs.

That Mahuika and his descendants were among the owners of Ohiti there can be no doubt, but we are not prepared to say that Mahuika was the sole owner or that the descendants of Anihi, Te Taha and Raramai te Rangi alone of the N'Mahuika have a right. Wiki and her co-claimants have proved that they are descendants of the ancestors to whom this land belonged ; they have also proved steady and continuous occupation since the year 1863. We may also concede that Koha and perhaps a few others had occupied at an earlier date. But we will here say distinctly that this concession is not based upon the evidence of Wiki or Pene te Ua for the early history given by them is, to say the least, apocryphal. Wiki's history of events before she had reached the age of 7 years is simply not to be believed, and we very much doubt whether her husband was much older at the commencement of his history. That which the claimants have not proved is their exclusive right to these lands. We will now consider the claim of Tarahe : that is whether the evidence is such as to justify the Court in believing that Tarahe or his sons had a right to Ohiti. On this point the evidence of Noa Huke and others may be quoted. The claimants scoff at the idea of Tarahe having lands in this district, and Mr Loughnan complains that those who have set up Tarahe have not attempted to show where the lands of that man were situate. This is to a certain extent true; but if the counter claimants have not done so Noa Huke has. In Vol. 5 page 112 of the Chief Judge's notes Omahu rehearing Noa Huke says: " Mahuika is the ancestor who owned Matatanumia, Tarahe had a right there and so had Renata's ancestor Tuterangi.

•Mahuika was the sole owner in his day. "When Tarahe came back (to Heretaunga) he obtained a right. When Hinemanu went away she left her lands in Mahuika's care." This is no chance extract but a definite statement of facts which were within the knowledge of the witness, facts which are corroborated by Paramena te Naonao, an old man of N'Hinemanu, whose occupation of Ohiti has not been denied, who could only have occupied as a descendant of Mahuika and who belonged to the claimant's case. He says, book 20, page 80, " Tarahe lived at Raukawa, Opunua (on Ngatarawa), and he and Mahuika lived at Ohiti and Te Torohanga. Tarahe married Te Nawe. He had a right to Omahu and Matatanumia. Taraia 11. divided his lands among his children. Hinemanu got (smaliu, Matatanumia and Ohiti." We have also the evidence of Hoana Pakapaka, herself a N Hinemanu, who says, book 20, page 56, " Tarahe and Te Nawe lived at Ohiti." At page 149 she says, " My list of names (for Matatanumia) contains all of the descendants of Mahuika and Tarahe. I don't know that any of them lost their rights by going away." Many other quotations might be made, but these are sufficient to prove that Tarahe was an owner of Matatanumia, which was part of Ohiti. Judges O'Brien and Von Stunner at the first hearing of the Omahu block awarded Matatanumia, viz—From Upokopaoa to Te Kahika and thence to the Ngaruroro river, excluding the Arawhata a Tikumu, to the descendants of Mahuika and Tarahe, Ist, and it is this list of names to which Hoana refers at page 149 of book 20. In this list the names of Bameka s children and also of Mrs Donnelly, her brothers, &c., appear, and Hoana admits that no one objected to that list although they had all banded together to fight Mrs Donnelly. There are yet other reasons for presuming that Tarahe had a right to Ohiti, for in the Owhaoko case Han a Hinemanu says, " I have never heard that Mahuika had independent rights anywhere,'" and during the Omahaki appeal she confirmed this statement, and Wiki Te Ua says that she does not know of a single block of land in which Mahuika was the sole owner. [The remaining portion of the judgment will appear to-morrow.]