NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Hot Lakes Chronicle, Volume 5, Issue 220, 20 February 1897, Page 2

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

At tin's Court on Monday last before Judges Edger and Johnson and Native Assessor, Ilemi Erueti, the following judgment was given re the Parawai 'Block : The decision appealed from was given on the 2nd September, 1890', upon original' investigation of title, when the land south of Ngongotaba Stream was awarded to Ng!Pukalci; the part adjoining said sheam to tho north to Ng'Tura; and tho extreme northern end of the block to NgTunohopu and Ng'Tiki. Claims set up for.Ng'To Rorooterangi and Ng'Ngararnuui wore dismissed. Applications for rehearing were lodged by Ng'Pukaki, Ng'Tura and Ng'Te Rorooterangi. These have been ordered to be treated as appeals. The appeal by Ng'Pukaki is not concurred in by one section of the hapu under Tfomi to Tupara, who asks that tho former decision bo affirmed. The N'Tura claim tho whole block. There is no doubt that the principal occupation of the hlock in recent years has been hy this hapu. The' persons now living on the land are almost exclusively members of N'Tura. It has been asserted that N'Tura were a conquered people, and that their residence in the Rotorua District since the conquest has been under the maim of their conquerors, the N'AVhakaue. It is not clear to this Court that this has been so, hut the judgment in tho Rotorua-Patoterc-Paoroa ease expressed the opinion that they -wore a hapu subject to N'Whakaue, and it does not appear that this decision was appealed against by N'Tura. However, there is no doubt that they have acted with N'AVhakauo for some generations past in the wars against outside tribes, and that they and some of the hapus of N'AVhakauo have jointly occupied this and other lands, and that, it was not until-the N'Tura joined in the rebellion in 1563-5, while the N'Whakaue remained loyal, that tho divergence between N'AVhakauo and N'Tura became' accentuated. At the end of the war, N'Tura were induced by N'AVbakaue to return to the Rotorua District, when they re-occupied the settlement at Ngongotaba. It is clear to us, however, that the claim of NTwra to the whole t?ock cannot bo upheld. In 1868 tho south boundary of tho block was settled by tho Native Committee as a boundary between N'Pukaki and N'Tunohopu, who were then disputing over it. In that dispute N'Tura appear to have taken no part. This boundary, as settled by the Native Committee was afterwards confirmed by the - Court, and tho land south of it (the Waikuta Block), has since boon awarded to N'Tunohopu. We think that the settling of this boundary is good evidencethat the N'Pukaki own tho land abutting on it to the north, though how far north of it the N'Pukaki rights extendis anofher question. Tho N'PukaM likewise claim the whole block.- We think that they have provedsome occupation at Ngongotaba, both north and south of tho stream —but so have'N'Tura. Tho occupation of these two hapus here has been joint, but we do not think that tho right to so occupy has been shown to lie exclusivelj' with cither party.- On tho whole tho decision fixing the stream as tho boundary between them is fair and just. Tho claim set up by N'Pukaki to tho extreme northern part of tho block is not supported by satisfactory evidence. It rests chiefly upon the assertion that they obtained a canoe from tho land. This, however, is denied by others. As regards the claims set up by NgatiTunohopu, Ng'Tiki and Ng'To Eorooterangi to the land north of To Ana-oTari, we- consider that no occupation of tho th" hiish some miles inland of this block, frontage of that inland country. Those cultivations were on tho Okoheriki No 2 Block, which was awarded to N'Tura at tho hearing of Rotorua-Patetcre-Paeroa (tho tribal claim of N'AVbakaue), in ISS2. Reference to tho procodings in that ease makes it clear that the occupation by N'Tura and by other N'Whakaue hapus Block as a whole, and the division lino fixed by the Court between Okoheriki No 1 and Okoheriki No 2 was an arbitrary one, tho result being that some of the N'Tura cultivations, kaingas or N'Whakaue cultivations, etc., on Okohebapu of N'AA r hakano, by right of descent through Hinetai, a daughter of To WhatUniairangi. This descent is denied, but we do not think that it has been disproved. AVe incline to think that it has been substantiated. Throughout this judgAnother ground of claim set up by N'Tunohopu: N'Tiki and N'Te Rorooterangi is tho uso of a track crossing this land, when going to their inland cultivations. We think that the balance

of evidence is in favour of there having been only one such truck, and that it was up the banks of the Waited Stresftu ; and that there was no established, track leading inland from Te Arii-o-Tari, as asserted by N'Te Roro itejimgi. Had there been no occupation on tin* northern part of the Paruwai Block itself weight might attach to these claims through inland occupation, and use of the track leading thereto. But inspection or the" land shows very distinct signs of an ancient settlement at the place called by some TePuke. and bv others Te Tutu—and the Court has had some difficulty in forming an opinion as to what hapu lived at this nlace. We think, however', that the weight of evdenee is in favor of N'Tura. The other hapus do not satisfactorily account for this occupation, and strongly deny each other's assertions respecting it. More-over.-it appears that the Native Committee' awarded this very land to N'Tura when there was a dispute over it in IS7S-9. The ownership of this Parawai Block lias been very keenly contested, and a lengthy judgment might be written were' we to remark upon all the' points that have been raised in the course of tinargument. Wo have selected for remark those points only which seem to bo the 1 most weighty, but wo have not overlooked! the numerous other matters referred to by the various conductors'. Our decision is that the former award to N'P'ukaki, of all the'land south of the' Ngongotaha stream, bo affirmed; and that the rest of the blocV, being all the land north of the' Ngongotaha stream, he awarded to N'Tura.