THE WHAREPUHUNGA BLOCK

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8881, 18 May 1892, Page 3

THE WHAREPUHUNGA BLOCK

JUDGMENT OF THE NATIVE LAND COURT. The following is a copy of the judgment in the Wharcpuhunjja case, delivered recently by Judge Gudgeon : — This block of land, containing 133, acres, was brought before the Native Land Court sitting at Kihikilii 011 the 7th April, IS!)-, after several adjournments wliieh _ were granted in order to enable the parties to the suit to come to some arrangement outside to which the Court might give efleot; but, as is usual in such cases, 110 good resulted from the adjournments. The Court was unable to deal with the partition claims in lie Gazette, inasmuch that the title to the block had not issued, and, by rule 15 of the Native Land Court, no subdivision of land can take place until the title to the land has issued. It was withheld in this ease in consequence of a Government survey lien of £.'3ll 10s against the block.

Under these circumstances, the Court decided to proceed witli the application of Hitiri te Paerata for the determination of rel ilive interests. During the early stages of the ease, Mr. \V. 11. (Iraoc. acting on behalf of Rangitutia and li'tpm of the iraukawa, raised certain objections oil which the Court; will now comment in order that there may be no misconception in the minds of those interest til. The first point taken was that Mr. C. T. Wilkinson, in his capacity as agent for the Crown, had no standing in the Court, since any interests acquired by the Crown were illegally purchased, from the fact that the tit le had not issued.

The Court decided that Mr. Wilkinson had an undoubted right to appear and watch the icrest of rite Crown, and that the legality 01 otherwise of the presumed purchase did not concern the Court, since it, was not called upon in this case to decide what interest the Crown had acquired. Its only duty i:i this ease is to award such shares as the evidence shall show each person to be entitled to, and to prevent chiefs of tribes or ha/)it-i from increasing or diminishing the interests of any person for the reason that, lie has or has not sold to the Government of the colony. The case before the Court is one for definition of interests, and the Cgurt will perform its duties, without reference to any collateral question of sale or otherwise. Another point wa ; , to the effect that the Court could not entertain the application of Te l'aehua to set up a ease on behalf of Nga11whakatere, since the land had been definitely awarded to Ngatitakihiku. Here, also, the Court ditiered from Mr. Clraee, who had been misled by a document in the handwriting of the assessor, I'aratene N'gata, attached to the file._ This document is, apparently, an unauthorised expression of his own opinion, since there is nothing in the minutes of the Court to show to whom this land was awarded, or to warrant the memo, above lvf :rred to, which, after reciting the boundaries of the block, proceeds to say that the award li id been ill ide in favour of certain hu/nia of Ngautakihiku. There li is realty been no investigation into the title of this land. It is true that an order has been made in favour of Jl.ll persons, but tin! bound ies and lists of names were settled outside the Court, and presented by llauauru I'outauii, and it does not appear that these lists were objected to, or even questioned, by anyone. It is for this reason that the Court Iris been compelled to treat the case as one of origin investigation. ll.id the block been awarded to any tribe or fiapu, the matter would have resolved itself into a simple inquiry into descent and occupation. Now, however, an exhaustive inquiry into the history of the \\ harepuiiuuga block during the past. till years has become necessary, to enable the Court to define interests in a manner satisfactory to all parties to the suit. The Court does, however, agree with Mr. (Ira. in his content ion that the Survey Department have no lien against this land, and therefore that; there is no good or sullieieut reason for delaying the issue or title. A li"ii can only be lawfully obtained in the manner prescribed by the Native Land Court Acts, and, as the procedure has not been followed in this we, there is no lien. The following claims were made, and eases set up in this bio : —

1. Te I'a'eiiua, on behalf of the Ngatiwliakatere, claims a long narrow strip on the west boundary of Wiiarepuiiunga, extending from til" Kokoputahi ford on the Mangalutu Stream to a point on the southoast boundary, which he affirmed to lie the true Taporaroa. lie objects to tile position of TaporaroJ as shown on plan No. til

'J. A rem iv■ ii'ii claims a riiriit over the wli'il'; (it the tropuhum-ca 151<>- Ic, tor herself ami other il.-soou i «nts of ancestors included ill the I(> 11 • >r,'ill 4 /-t/r.'s;-X^'atiw.li-N\' iti; ikihiku, N •:atim liotaki, ton11 lUoiti. Xsjati t.H.i iteiunvi. ete. M(ii'aee,oii bo, ill of I!') li'ijim of tile N- uitikihiku tribe, claims exclusive ruht. over i.ho whole block, an 1 I denies the of Uitiri t>- l\ierat i or the eouuLercmimant.s to the 111 1■ I before 'lie Court. ! 1 l'itiri to I'a-rata claims a riu'ht, hut not exclusive, over the who!.' I>!•>■• .1. 011 behalf of tiie X-4 ititckolicr.i, N'Sit mi irokawa, X •_!_« ti - in.: >. X-catimoekitio, X •i!itiihuti»fa,>X:4-y----tip i! i iuto-1. irip.uotokai'n.'.o, and kirif irat.u'a A'///"-'. ■Subsequent to the setting up of the.se eases Tc 11, in ,'im KMkaii asked to he allowed to set up ;i iso for himself, apart from that of Arcta ip'-i. The Court permitted him to do so, hut after occupying the time or the Court < 1111' iii o:ie day, lie decided to his case info that of the Ivwn represented I>v Mr. < Iraoo. _ ... Tie Court will deal with those claims 111 the .same order as they were brought before it

To I'aehua. in support of his claim, stated that the ancient bo'uudiry between lie Ngatiwin'latere ami Ngatit-ikiliikit tribes followed, not tin' natmal boundary of tiie M.ri.'iuiiu Stream, but. the »l« 1 native track which crossing tilts Mangatutu stream at Kokojiutaiii km by way of 'i'o kahikatea ami Matapuku to Taporaroa. II ' claims that his '-tribesman l'e I'utv.ngi lived )raugipaea before the great aukawa migration took place, and that, his own grandfather. 1 luiigahunga, lived at i'awhenua subsequent. to the migration in question. He more over, asserts that, on the occasion of the meeting held at Aolearoa, in order to discuss matters connected with the .survey of the bio -k. lie attended, anil asked to be allowed to form one of lie survey party, but the Ngatiraukawa refused to allow him to do so; that. he, nevertheless, followed the surveyors, and objected to the position they had filed as Taporaroa, under the direction of *I',. |' angimoea'.cau,. ami succeeded in inducing I lie surveyor, Alt*. Pole, to put in a peg at tue spot he indicated as. the real Taporaroa. Ho further assures the Court that, during the Maraeroa investigation, he succeeded in establishing tin; truth of his claim as to the position of Taporaroa, and that the boundaries of the l'ouakani block were altered to include the piece claimed by him in M iraeroa. n ■So far Te I'iie.hua had established a good prima Sarin ease, but under cross-examina-tion he admitted several very important matters whieli had probably escaped his memory. First, he admitted that, from the date of the great migration to Kapiti, the mana .and management of the deserted lauds had fallen into the hands of two great chiefs, Manga and I'ateriki, who represented respectively the NuMt.it ikihiku and Ngatiwhakatero tribes and that, on the death of Pateriki, lie was succeeded by his _ brother, Liauauru I'liiitaniii, ii man of the highest rank. Now. it was this very chief who assented to the .Uangatutu boundary, and requested the Court to give eiFecl. to the boundary which had presumably been agreed to by both tribes, since then; is no evidence that anyone raised' an objection, lie also admitted that he had, in a Gazette of the 2'Jth d uiie, 1880. application No. .'!S, described the eastern boundary of liangi toto, and that this boundary differed materially from that now given by him as the old ancestral boundary. lie can give no explanation as to this serious I dilVercncc; lie simply says, " 1 alone am re- | sponsible for the boundaries given in the Gazette; I knew it was not the true bouiiilary." I The Court lias no difficulty in believing | ; hat Te I'aehua was alone responsible for the i boundary then given, and nlvi for that now 1 given, since both of them dill'er from that | approved by the tribes and handed into Court j by liauauru. . j But the Court cannot believe that le j I'aehua, when he sent his first application to 1 the Gazette above quoted, knew of the exisj tence of the ancestral boundary ho now ' quotes, for in such case lie would hardly have ' defrauded himself of at least 5000 acres of 1 land. i To I'aehua admits that the Ngatiwhakatore ' did not hand in any list of names as such. • and that they only appear oil the rolls of this J block by virtue of descent from Takihilui. i Under cross-examination he admits that s the objection made by Ngatiraukawa was j not to his inclusion in the survey parts', but to his being paid for going,—a dillerence which Te i'aehuii does not appear to appreciate at its true value, but which shows conclusively that Ngatiraukawa oiler ed no obI struction, and did not carry out the survey | clandestinely. tit; d.oes not deny that he was present ! when the map of W hareptihunga was exiu- ' bited for the purpose of hearing objections, ' anil asserts that he did object, but there is no minute in the Court books to show tnat any such objection was made. To I'aehua was not fortunate in his witness Tiriwa, for she not only declared that she i knew nothing of Te i'aeiiua's claim, but also

proceeded to set up a perfectly new claim on behalf of the Ngatiwnakatere, outside the boundaries laid down by Te Paelma. Hitiri te Paerata also, while supporting To P'aehua, admitted that the only ancient boundary lie had ever heard of between Whakaterc and Takihiku was that which, commencing at Mangamaire, followed the course of the Mangatutu stream to its source, and thence went direct to Pukeokahu and Taporaroa. Now it is this very boundary that has been adopted bv the tribes, and shown 011 the map as the tribal boundary. Under these circumstances, the Court linds that the Ngatiwhakatere nave 110 right 011 the Wharepuhunga Block as a tribe, and dismisses the claim of Te l'aehua. The point raised by Te Paehua, as to the true position of Taporaroa, not being connected with the claim 011 behalf of Ngatiwhakatere, will be dealt with hereafter. Areta Kapu, 011 behalf of the ha/ma already mentioned, claims by maua, ancestry, and occupation. She asserts that her ancestors and relatives, down to the time of Te Kohika, were permanent resident:-!, and that she also has lived 011 the land. She claims a general, but not exclusive, right over the whole block, and contends that her grandfather. To Kohika, and his cousin, Kawhia, chiefs of the highest rank, occupied this land after tiie departure of the Ngatiraukawa to Taupo, Rotorua, Kipiti, and other places, and thereby not only prevented the Waikatos from seizing the laud by right of conquest, but also turned away certain members- of that group of tribes who had obtained a footing oil tin; land, and by this course of action enabled some of the scattered remnants of Ngatiraukawa to return and resume occupation at a later period. Tnpotahi, who gave evidence in this same claim, aliirm.-s that, at a certain period in the history of this block, the Ngatiraukawa living in the vicinity of the Waikato and Ngatiinaiiiapoto, having sutiered serious defeats at the hands of these tribes, retired, some to Pasvaiti, some to Taupo, and others to Ivapiti, and that they were visited at the former place by their near, but hostile, relatives, To Akanui and Tukorehu, of the Mtinianiapoto tribes, who made peace with the, Ngatiraukawa, and invited tiiem to return ; that the invitation was not accepted; that, .subsequently, Kawhia and Pe Kohika, son and nephew of To Akanui, occupied the descried lands, not by conquest, but by ancestral right, and were joined a few years later by Takurangi, To .Maro, Te Adkatoa, and the few families who hid not gone to Ivapiti, but had taken temporary shelter at Taupo, Ofawhao, and other places ; and that, while in occupation of- Oteruahine Pa, Kawliia, and Te Kohika turned away certain members of the Ngitikoura tribe who had begun to cultivate on Wharopuhunga. Tupotahi admits that Tukorehu and his descendants did not occupy this land, but that Te Kohika and K iwhia, father of Manga, exercised important acts of ownership over the land while living at Or.'Tiiahine and oilier places—-two canoes named respectively I' mgi wait a and |\j K ita-o-R iiutiuva, being built for the former, and two others for .Manga, lie states, m >reover, that this occupation was previous to ISI ), and extended to the time when Christianity was tirinlv established, alter Hone 11 eke'.-; war, when tin; Ngatiraukawa, living in the vicinity beg,m to return in some numbers. These are the chief points contained in the evidence given on behalf of the ca-ie set up by Areta Kapu, which is so intimately connected with that of lvuuitutia th it; it will be necessary to consider them together.

KANijrrUTIA S 0 VSK. This claim ditl'or.s materially from all others in this ease, .since hi! claims tor himself ami friends i.ho exclusive ownership of the block, iiii'l denies the ri.;ht of the other ekii 11 lilts. II utia contend 5 that those member.-, of the N^atira'.ia.ium at Or iki have equal rights with himself and the other permanent .uipauts of the land, no m itter whether they have or have not oee.mied this land since lS'ii), the date of _To Whitanui's migration. All til it he requires is that they shall lit; descendants of the ancestors whom he recognises as the original owners. !I ; does nil. deny that Tuk'ireuu and his allies conquered the N.r itiratik iwa, but asserts tint none of the N-.; iciraukawa migrated in consequence or this conquest, and calls the attention of the Court. i, i the tact i hat jic ice had ii"en m ole before any men hers of the trine had left for lvapiti. lie state* til it the re is-mis tor leaving, were, tirslly, that they wished to bo in a p wit ion to obtain ,'itns and powder ; and, secondly, that tliey had "m invited by I'; 1 1 taparaiia to assist him tim X2 uialtit, wii > had murdered To IViii. lUmiitutia therefore contends that tin; ancestral title wt the original owner has been maintained up to the present day. m< . lie denies that oitiier To Momo, M 11121111roa, or Te Ivohika, ancestors 01 At land her friends, ever lived oil til ■ i m i, imt door, not deny that the iirst-nanie I is buried at l'anotap i, 011 this bloc.;. i£.., moreover, explains rli.it, lit; id always objected to the lists o[ 'v:ames hande.l ill by ( :i.- Nj; it imani ip >• •, N ;>ti:.i it i!<-»ro, A2itiwairair.'i, and N'j; i.i'oinewai, and assorts that these people were included in the lists of owners by Nuaraka out 01 "* arotui,'' an.l that in the ease ol N^' ititek altera, . Najjatiparokawa, and Xg itiparetekawa, he had objected to them in Court, bat was told that the Court could not strike out these people, and that his proper course was to object when the land cam before the Court for subdivision. The ri;(lifc of 11 an 1 tlio;:; mem bers of lie: N;a:iraukawa tribe who remained on. or in 'lie vicinity of, th-ir ancestral lands, has not been questioned by anyone; the Court will not, therefore, remark upon their title. The points to decided in these two eases will be as follow : — Ist. Did th.: N'2 itiraukawu migrate in consequence of any conquest? ■2nd. Have the migrations alTeeleil tiie title to this laud ? 3rd. Are the present owners entitled to claim by continuous ancestral occupation? •I'll. What occupation had the kawa subsequent to the 1 [ me; ti^ht?^ ;">lh. What occupation, it any, had Te Kohika '!

titli. Are the Ngatiraukawa owners now entitled to repudiate those per;: ms, more than .'i\K) in number, whom they formerly admitted, but now say have 110 righ';? I J.: lore canuclering these que-ttion-i, it i-t advisable to explain the eireuinsiane'.s that led to the quarrel which resldtedin the migration of Ngatirauk uv.t as a tribe, and left only a few scattered families behind them. The real cause of this feud with the Ngatiinaniapoto was undoubtedly the murder of I'aretekawa, daughter of Tukor.-hu, tin I of Maniapoto, sou or I'e Akauui. i'uese people were kill -d by the Ngatiwh ikatere, and, about rhi.: same period, the N it iraukawa murdered Ivmgipakaru, of Ngitinaua, an t llarara, of N gal inaiio. To avenge these outrage.-!, a powerful confederacy was form id under the leadership ot Tukorehu, alia--11 mi, and other chiefs of N g at imaniajv.ito, and Muriwhenua and I'ohepohe, of Ngaliiiaua. Many battles were fought, the most important being Te Llreparawera, I'iriaka, and Hurimoana. " This last, which, so tar as can lie ascertained, was fought about the year ISI'J, was the decisive engagement of the first stage of the war, and there tile whakatoro were defeated with great slaughter—among others, their famous " toa," IV Koha, was killed, as also tile chiefs I'e Rangitakaroro, 'I'e Iviru, IV Ngako, I'lipeke, and others. It is said that I'e Holla did Mot die unavenged, for, of the conqueror*. Wahanui was speared in eight places, and Muriwhenua, ManngataiitiU i, and I'ohepohe were each wounded by him before he himself met his death at the hands of To Muringa. •For some years after this crushing defeat, the Ngatirailkawa rem lined quietly on their lands, presumably undisturbed by their enemies; but this was a condition of things that, from the very nature of the Maori, could not be maintained, since revenge was a necessity to anv tribe tnatdesired to preserve its " mttna." Under this influence, a message was sent to the Ngatipukeko tribe, of Whakatano, asking assistance, and they responded to the call, under the leadership of two very great warriors, (villi and Mokai. 'They joined gatiwh ikatere and Ngatiraukawa, who hid assembled under the chiefs Te II ilii and [tape. and not only defeated the Ngati liana near Cambridge, but also killed the great chief Maungat.autari, near I'outama. and finally, aided by a party or Ngapuhi and Ng.itimaru, defeated Ngatimaniapoto at Mangatoatoa. killing the chief W harara. Manga was himself present at this battle. (Subsequent to this ail air, a combined war party of Arawa and Ngatirailkawa defeated the N/atimaniapoto at lvakamutu with great lossl'e \Vharaunga fell among others. To avenge these losses, a second confederacy was formed, and a .strong war party of Ngatihaua, Waikato, Ngapuhi. ami Nvi.itimaniapoto assembled, and, at Taugimania, Hangahanga and other places, so crushed the |lower of Ngatirailkawa that they retired to i'awaiti, I'auoo, and liotorua. _ Hangihanga was the last place at which Ngatirailkawa met the Ngatimauiapoto in battle, and it is Haiti tint this tight took place about the year 1819. The retreat from 11-ingahaug.i was, in the first instance, directed towards I'awtiti and other places in the vicinity of I'atetere, and, at, the former place, they were visited by Tukorehu and Te Akanui, who, being nearly related to Ngatirailkawa, were unwilling to push matters to extremities — anil here, not 0111 v was peace made, but the fugitives were invited to return and occupy their former homes; this, however, they j would not do. for reasons which are perfectly clear to the Court, and which will be presently considered. We will now deal with the first question, " Did tiraukawa leave in consequence of anv conquest j ii 1 ngitutia, in answer to questions by Mr. J Cage, gave the following replies; l 'i cannot

say whether the Ngatiraukawa, who migrated to Rotorua, lived under the maim of Rangitoheriri; or if those who went to Taupe were under the man a of Te Kohika and 'le Paerata ; or those at Otawhuo were under the munct of Te Paewaka; or those at Oltauia under the /nana of Te Waharoa.

We will take Rangitutia's reply in the sense that he did not admit the manaot the chiefs m question over his people, but lie made no attempt to deny the fact of their having been scattered to the four corners of the earth ; and therefore it is that the Court asks : If it is true, as stated by Rangitutia, that none of his tribe migrated because of the conquest, then why are they found to be scattered in this maimer among other tribes ? It is no doubt true, as stated by Ngatiraukawa, that peace was made with ' N'/atimaniapoto and Waikato before the various h'.'/xfi left, but it is not clear to the Court that Ngatiraukawa placed any faith in that peine. There is, however, a much stronger cause for the migration—one mentioned by many witnesses in the Rohe I'otae investigation, but not touched upon in this Court. In the minutes of the Court, book 12, page 1157, Piripi Whanatangi sivs: "When the Ngatiiaukawa iled from Hangahauga, they went to Pawaiti, and lived there until Kiwi, of the Ngatiinaru tribe, was murdered at' Tauranga! This caused Ngatiinaru to attack am! capture the Ngatiraukawa pa, Kopu, an island in the Waikato River. Those who escaped lied to Firaiunti, where they were followed, and again attacked; an I subsequently the chiefs Te Whatakaraka and Ilereara were killed. After this allNgatira.ilkawa migrated to Taupo, and when the various hapnx had assembled at that place the whole tribe moved oil' to Kapiti. Of the few who remained, it was said by Te Monoiti that they were food for Waikato." At page :>.'>!. book 11, Mauauru says : — 11 It was before the death of To Wlnitakaraka that Te R uiliaraha sent to Ngatiraukawa for assistance. I'liose living near Taupo went; those living near Te Waotu and Wharepulmnga did not go until long after." Now Raugitutia tells us that a very large majority.of the Wharepulmnga hapu-i went with Te Whatanui, and this was not two years after the first migration, in which there were also many people of this lan I. Mauauru auds " I only now appear in Court because Waikato are trying to take this land." Oil two occasions it has been given • in evidence before this Court that, in the Rohe l'otae case, it was arranged beforehand that evidence as to conquest should not be given, lest the Waikato tribes should thereby be admitted as owners, either at Kawliia or Wharepulmnga. llatiauru has given his evidence as a strong adherent of Ngatiraukawa, whose one purpose was to keep out Waikato at all hazards, and for this reason his evidence is unreliable except where he is speaking against his own interest. As an instance, lie savs that Manga had no right 011 this block. That this is not true is evident from the evidence of Raugitutia, who shows that Manga has a right. Raugitutia says tint To Whatanui, when invited to return to this land by Te Reuben, who had been deputed to visit him at Kapiti for that put pose, would not do so because he had killed his enemies at that place, and had no reason for leaving. The Court has no doubt whatever as to the reasons that instigated Ngatiraukawa to refuse to return, whether after the peacemaking at I'awaiti, or on the occasion of Te Reuben's visit to Kapiti. Had they accepted the oiler and returned to this land, they must have done so in a position subordinate to '1 ukorehu, and other Ngatimaniapoto chiefs, and this they were not prepared to do. That the Court is correct in taking this view of the question is evident from the tca'nihi, sung by Te Whatanui, commencing, '"/ roii'/o torero (in ki I'.'. (ttir/rUa.'' Ngatiraukawa were conquered-, and they know it, but they were a ran Ki'if't tribe, and declined to live as vassals to anv man. They knew, also, that if tliev could but reach Kapiti, both freedom and safety would be found at that place Kor these reasons they deliberately relinquished their ancestral home; they did not s<> much fear loss of life as loss of honour — and this, we may say, is of all M i.ori characteristics the most common. ingitutia is not justified in saying that Whatanui had killed his enemies at Kapiti. The Court knows of no enemies killed by Ngatiraukawa at that place, but does know it to be a matter of history that they were saved from extinction at the hands of Ngatiawa and Taranaki by the war party of Taomii Ilikika and Te lleuheu, and were subsequently defeated by the same tribes at the Ivuititanga, with heavy lo'.s. The Court finds that the Ngatiraukawa tribe did migrate to avoid the natural consequences of a conquest, conuneneed by Ngatiina-uiapoto and Waikato, and subsequently carried on by Ng'tiaiiru. We will now consider the second and third question-:—Have the migrations all'eetcd the title to this laud? and, if so, .are the present owners entitled to claim continuous ancestral occupation'?—but before doing so, will remind the Ngatiraukawa that the Court will in this, as in all other eases, be guided by the well-known rule that tile v'ourt 11111 sit and decide as though it were sitting in IS 11. What then was the condition ot this land at or about that period? Riugitutia tells us ill he and his people never gave up possession of this land, and that they only lett_ it temporarily to come to Otawh to after Christianity had been firmly v'sfcabli.-ihed (presumably about the yen* I'M- and then only to be near the Rev. Mr. Morgan. IliMvi te 1' ierat i tells fie Court that, after lie If.ni'gahauga fight, this land was deserted : that the few families left behind by Te What itiui, il -d for 1 lie most part to Taupo. and lived at tint place under the of Te K >hiki and Co I'aerata; and

tint 'IV Ivohika and K.twhia (father of Maug.i). were the first to re-ojeupy the block at Oleruahine and other places. Now these two accounts <liflei* widely, anil are not to >.* reconciled ; the question is therefore, which is t ie truth? The Court must accept Iliciri's statement, for the reason t.Ji.it it is corroborated by many witnesses win have given evidence in other Courts. The Court will quote two only— as to 1 e Aokatoa's occupation, by a European and disinterested witness; the other, on till) same .subject, because he i:> notoriously favourable to Ngutiraukawa. In the Maungatautari ease, I"U\ 11. R. Hooper, in Court Minute i>ook No. I'J, s tvs : —" I lived at O. akau from IS IS to bvj'l. _ To Aokatoa, Nikora, lluiratna, and others lived there during that time. To Aokatoaand his brother also lived at Arafitaha_ during that period."' Il.puiurn, i i eonelttiiiu his evidence in the I {.oho I'otae case days: —" I'c Aokatoa, Tonjiariro, and their peoplowere conducted by its recently to reside at harepuhunga; it was after the introduction of Christianity, and they came to join the Church." 'Now, this is the chief whom I! uigitutia admits was chosen by them to give evidence and support their cas:>. It is tine that i f. iiiru say. that these people did not go to Taupo, but rema ned at Piwaiti, but Kaukiuta, in the it oho I'otae case, says that To I'aewaka went to Taupo, anil brought To Aokatoa and his followers to Otawhao. Prom the foregoing evidence it is clear that, for some years, both before and after the j year IS 10, the Ngatiruukawa wore not in actual occupation of this land; but there is everv reason to believe that their relations, To Ivohika anil Kawhi a. did hold the land, and thereby prevented the Waikato tribes from intruding ; and that they did tuis by virtue of their own power as chiefs of very high rank, and were moreover supported by the Xgatun miapoto and their uncle, Pehi Tukorchu, a, very noted warrior. The .'ilttiut of this laud was during that period in the hands of the above-named chiefs, and this maii'k was derived, not only from the conquest, but also fi < >iii ancestral right, as descendants of IV: Momo-o-Iraw iru. Ordina.rily speaking, there is no such thing as miai'f, over landit is, tor the most part, a modern inventionbut this is not an ordinary case. Hero a tribe is defeated, loses all power over its laud, and migrates to another part of the island, wing their estate in the iiai; Is of powerful an 1 quasi-hostile relations. Can it lie contended that the Jew families who remained under tile nl'la'■ i of other tribes held the land as agiinst those of their conquering relatives, who also occupied? It cannot'; and the proof is, that no one could have prevented the beforemeutioned chief's from seizing this laud had they desired to do so. ' . , The Court finds that the ancestral right ot Ngatirankawa over tins land ceased -it the time, when Whatairui, having collected the scattered members of the tribe at Taupo, marched, men, women, and _ children to lvipiti. From that time, the right of those who have lived on this land has been based on the invitation of L'ukorehu and Fe Ak.imii to return, and on the subsequent occupation. With reference to the fourth question, the Court is of opinion tint the first to occupy after ! L uig ihanga were Ivawliia, I.c Ivohika, and their adherents,_ and .'".hat they, | some time .subsequent to the Treaty of \\ a'j taugi, collected and protected the scattered remnants of Ngatirankawa. _ , , The Court finds tilth To Ivohika and Ivawhia h id an undoubted right to this land, and that neither the latter, nor his son, Manga, derived that right exclusively from their ners In Minute i>ook No. >, page 2(iti, To Itangika.riiiiripia says that Ivapus residence was at i\: Auanui. near harepapa, Oil this block; and, during the investi•"rition by tin* Iv 'Y'll (Joniniissiou into Llio Maraeroa case, lliuauru says that lie gave | back the lands from Wairakoi to To 1 ouiii kani to To Auheke. who was one of the prinj cipal owners. Now, this nan was an ancestor ! of A ret a Ivapu—therefore we .have the testi- ! ninny of two witnesses, both independent, that the Ivohika family did reside on the , block, and had a right to do so. i With regard to the claim of Tupotahi, the ' Court cannot admit that the descendants of Tukorchu have an equal right with those of To

Kohika and Kawhia. During the lifetime of that chief no one would have been found bold enough to dispute his title, but) his descendants have admitted that they have not occupied for the last forty-five years. The actual owners of this land have been unfortunate, inasmuch as the list of names was passed by general consent outside the Court, and without that inquiry into the right and status of those seeking to become owners, which would alone protect the interests of the permanent residents of the block. It is the opinion of - this Court that the Maoris are to blame for this method ot conducting their affairs, but will remark, for their future guidance, that this Court will not accept lists of names without scrutiny merely because the owners request the Court to do so. . During the subdivision of tho Kawhia blocks it was said in evidence that the lists of names were crowded by those who had no right or interest in the block, in order-to exclude the Waikato tribes, whose claims were feared by the Ngatimaniapoto, and that this course was pursued under the impression that the persons so admitted could be quietly shunted on to some out-of-the-way corner of the block, where their presence would not trouble the owners whenever the land came before the Court for partition. The Court is unable to say whether this feeling has actuated the Maoris in this case also, but the effect has been the same. In a former case, Mr. Fen ton, then Chief Judge of the Court, expressed a very decided opinion on the claims of those members of the Ngatiraukawa tribe who had migrate 1 to Kapiti and other places, deserting their ancestral lands. His decision was to the effect that these people had no right whatever to the Patetere or Waikato lands. Unfortunately, this sound decision has not always been followed, and therefore, in the present case, the Court finds no less than 57 persons have been admitted who have practically no right to be on the rolls of the Court for Wharepulumga. Of these, probably '200 are of the Kapiti people. In other words, out of it total of 931 owners, 57 have no right. There are many reasons why people who have no right should not be admitted, even at the request of the real occupants of tho land. Firstly : Because valuable evidence is often lost to the Court by a promise from those interested to include a presumably dangerous witness among the owners ; and, at other times, apparently disinterested evidence, which may have great weight with the Court, is purchased by the facilities offered for the inclusion of these persons, who deserve no other name than land loafers. Secondly: It is improper to allow the chief of a tribe to include all his remote relations of other tribes at the expense, not of himself, but of his people, since this is done with no other object than to ensure the substantial compliment being returned in kind, not to the people who have suffered, but to the chief. This species of trathe in land is dignified by the name of arohn (affection), but seems hardly to deserve that title, since it is but a lively sense of benefits to come. There is yet another reason why this pernicious system of aroha (?) should be put a stop to, and that is, that most of the litigation in the Native Land Courts is carried on by means of money obtained from expectant grantees. This is exceedingly hard on the actual owners, who are frequently called upon to defend their land against bogus claims of this nature. In this case, the Court having been induced, by what may fairly be termed false pretences, to include these 572 persons—with the result that the work of every departpartment connected with Native Lands has been enormously increased —the question naturally arises, to what extent should the persons responsible for this loss of time and money be allowed to repudiate their previous actions, now that this block is again before the Court for definition of interests? Are they to be allowed to say, "It is true that we allowed, or, indeed, caused, these people to be included as owners, but we now tell you they have 110 right?" This is the position adopted by Eangitutia, who says that the Ngatitekohera, Ngatiparekawa, and Ngatiparetekawa have no right whatever. To a cert extent, the Court agrees with him, but also holds that he, having admitted these very people, is now estopped from denying their right, though not from showing that they have a small but substantial claim. This is also the position of the other coun-ter-claiinant, and of Hitir i. They deny the title of the Otaki people and of those admitted by aroiuc (■ ), and the same remarks apply to them with equal force. After a careful investigation, daring which enquiry has been made into the claim of each of the 901 owners, the Court is of opinion that the section represented by Hitiri te Paerata have only-a remote claim by ancestry, and practically none bv occupation ; that the descendants of Te Kohika have a good claim, ) but that most of those claiming with them I have hardly any claim ; and that the NgatiI raukawa of Otaki are in the same position I as l liUri's people, the Ngatitekohera. In pursuance with this decision, the Court has awarded: 1| shares to 1 person 1 share each to 247 persona share each to '27 persons A share each to 107 persons I share each to 572 persons In all, 4(T> full shares, each possessing an acreage value of 2S7a 2r lip, more or less. With reference to the claim made by Te Paehu 1 to have the position of Taporaroa altered, and the small piece of land included wrongfully in this block awarded to him, the Court i* of opinion that the judgment in the Maraoroa Block practically settled this cas >, and that the position of Taporaroa should be as claimed by Te Paeliua. This is not, however, a Partition Court, but this claim has been practically settled by the shares awarded to Te Paeliua and others. The Court lias struck out of the Wharcpuhunga rolls the names of 36 persons who were found to be duplicates of those already on the roll, and also the name of one person who had been placed 011 the roll as an owner, in anticipation of its birth, but which event apparently never took place. W. K. Gudgeon, Judge; Pi rim Matai.ywhea, Assessor. Kihikihi, 9th May, IS'J'2.