The Native Land Court.

Thames Star, Volume xxviii, Issue 8479, 9 October 1896, Page 4

The Native Land Court.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

The Native Land Appellate- Court, which, has been sitting at Shortland (with short inteivals) since February, has now completed its work, and adjourned sine die on the 30th September

The Court-has been engaged^ m hearing appeals against the decisions of Judge Gudgeon, who, it "will be remembered, while sitting here in 1893, awarded a number of blocks in the Piako district to the ancestral claimants, viz.: Ngamarama, Waitahi, or Ngatihako, totally ignoring the rights claimed by Ngatimaru. By the judgment it will be seen that generally speaking the former decisions have been reversed or varied, the ancestral claimants obtaining two-thirds and the Ngatimaru, who claim by conquest, one-third in each block. Most of the blocks dealt with are extremely valuable on account of the fine forests of kahikatea (white pine), while others are fairly well adapted for settlement. The natives are now petitioning Government to have a fresh Court set up at once, as they are most anxious to put through the following large and important blocks, viz: Whakatiwai, Mangawhero, and Waitakaruru. Judgment of the Appellate Court was as follows: —

| Judgment iii Kopuraruwai, Koukourahi, Kopurarahi, Ngataipua, Makumakn, WaiI ran, Tiritiri, Umutawa, and Pouarua- | Pipiroa, 21st September, 189*, by Judges ! Scannell and Edger ; and Hare Matenga, '"Native Assessor.

The cases on which we are now giving judgment are appeals from the decision given by the Native Land Court on investigation of title on the dates specified in each of the foregoing cases, and by the person or persons set out after each:—l. Kopuraruwai. Decision given 6th December, 1893. Appellants : Hoani Nahe, Mita Watene, and W. H. Taipari. 2. Koukourahi. Decision given 7th December, 1593. Appellants same as in Kopuraruwai. 3. Kopuarahi. Decision given 7th December, 1893. Appellants: (I.) Same as foregoing. (2) Eaita Whakarongotai. 4. Ngataipua. Decision given 16th December, 1893. Appellants : (1,) Same as in Kopuraruwai. (2.) Kapihaua Te Tuhi. o. Makumaku. Decision 7th December, 1893. Appellants: (1.) Honi Anihana and others. (2.) Hare Renata. 6. Wairau. Decision given 6th December, 1893. Appellant: Hare Renata. 7. Tiritiri. Decision given 19th December, 1893. Appellant : Hare Renata. 8 TJmutawn,: Decision given 6th December, 1893. Appellant: Hare Kenata 9. Pouarua- Pipiroa. Decision given 19th March, 1895. Appellants: (1.) W. H. Taipari and others. (2.) Tiwai Paraone and-others. (3.) Mere Taipari, It is unnecessary to set out the grounds oi appeal in'these cases further than to say that the parties appealing are practically the same and on the same grounds; except in the case of Kapihana Te Tuhi in Ngataipua. Honi Anihana and those associated with him in Makumaku and Tiwai Paraone and others in Pouarua Pipiroa. The bulk of the appellants are of the Ngatimaru and urge in their appeals that their grounds of claim set out at the hearing of each case, by conquest, by gift, and by occupation were unjustly dismissed, except in the Pouarua-Pipiroa, where, although they weie awarded an interest in the block, they allege that such interest does not truly represent their claims, but as their claims in that block are exactly the same as in the' others, they will be dealt with as one. The appeal in the Pouaru*> Pipiroa case by Mere Taipari is the same us the other by Ngatimaru and will be included with them.

The appeal of Tiwai Paraone and others in Pouarua-Pipiroa 1 alleges that the award made to Ngatimaru is unjust inasmuch as they have no claim to the land. This will also be dealt with when speaking of the Ngatimaru claims. The appeals by Kapihana Te Puhi in Ngataipua and Horn Anihana and others in Makumaku will be dealt with separately. The Ngatimaru claim generally comprises the whole of the lands known as Kopuraruwai. Koukourahi, Kopuarahi, Umutawa, Ngataipua and Pouarua-Pipiroa as well as other lands not yet brought before the Court and thengrounds of claim are conquest, gift, and^ occupation. We may say that Ngatimaru do not claim exclusive ownership but acknowledge a right in cci tain of the descendants of the conquered people who were allowed by the conquerors and their descendants to remain on the land as "rahi" or serfs to Ngatimaru. The claims of Ngatimaru are denied by their opponents of the various hapus of Waitaha and Marama, now more generally known as Ngatihako with which tribe they have now become assimilated by intermarriage. With respect to the claims of Ngatimatn by conquest and gift, we must say that the evidence brought forward in support of these take is too conflicting and too contradictory la itself to allow the Court to receive it as

an undoubted base of claim nor has any satisfactory evidence been brought forward 'o justify the Court in deciding that the Sj'/Vitaha and Marama, said to have fes-en 'L! "owed to remain on the land, did so regain in the condition of " rahi," but nevertheless the evidence at this Court, at the Court «f first hearing, and in the various casNes heard and decided at previous Courts, shows that however Ngatiraaru may i.-,ve acquired a footing in the Piako lands, l.icy did acquire such a footing and used it. It has been shown to our satisfaction that Ngatimaru exercised from time to time various acts of ownership on these lands, not by actual permanent residence, but by resorting to them for obtaining such food as the land produced, at their i pleasure or convenience without obstruction from those who now oppose them; that from generation to generation since they claim to have first taken possession of the land, they have taken eels from the Piako and other streams, snared ducks in the lagoons, and caught patiki and other fish in the shallow waters en the Coast. That, during the lifetime of the present o-eneration, they have bred horses and pigs on suitable places in these lands, always without opposition from Waitaha, Ngf.inarama or Ngatihako. There are other proofs that the" opposition to the Ngatimaru owning any part whatever of these lands is a comparatively recent departure on the part of Waitaha, Ngamarama, and Nga'.ihako. The line now laid down by Ngatimaru defining the limits of their interests, was passed by the Native Land Court on two separate occasions, once in 1882 and onco in 1889, after long discussion" among the tribes interested — Ngatimaru, Ngatipaoa, and Ngatihako. In 1889, after a week's discussion outside, attended by all the parties interested, that line was assented to in Court, j leading members of Ngatihako being present and assenting. These agreed to the line of boundary between Ngatimaru and Ngatipaoa, making the proviso only that other hapus as well as Ngatimaru owned land within these boundaries. They did not allege then, as they do now, that Ngatimaru owned no land whatever within these boundaries. When the- Hopai block, which is really a part of Pouarua-Pipiroa, passed the Court soon after this line was accepted, the present opponents of Ngatimaru —who were the claimants—not only made no objection, though they must have had a knowledge of the proceedings, but one of their principal men Ngahoa Ripikoi, in open court, after the prima facie case was made, acknowledged the boundaries were correct, and that it was through him they were fixed as they were by Hare Renata, who was claiming from a Ngatimaru source. These and other matters of a like nature, prove that the Ngatimaru must have had, in the estimation of their present opponents, some claims, and we think this is proved by their use of the land at various times, but' we cannot say that their claim is equal to that of thosawho have more permanently resided on the land. We shall therefore award to the Ngatimaru claimants one-third part of the Kopuraruwai, Koukoulv.hi, Kopuarahi, Ngataipua, and Pouaruaripiroa blocks, as representing the quantum of interest in the lands under consideration to which we consider they are entitled. The position of such share in each of the blocks mentioned is shown on the plans, but the boundaries will be more definitely described hereafter! In Kopuraruwai, Koukourahi, Kopuerahi and Pouarua-Pipiroa, the remaining twothirds of each are awarded to those previously declared the sole owners in such blocks, but we cannot see that the name of Hare Teimana has any right to be included among these and that name is therefore struck cut. With regard to the appeal of Kapihana Te Tuhi in the Ngataipua case, we are of opinion that the award of the Native Land Court ig his favor by the decision appealed against does not sufficiently cover his claim. The gift of his ancestors Taia, of a duck lagoon is not. we think, his true base of claim as urged by. Ngatimanuwhiri. The name of Hohepa Mataitaua was included among the owners on the rights by descent from Taia, but inasmuch as Hohepa Mataitaua has not appeared to support his claim, though present during the greater part of the proceedings, and as our decision is not based on the claim from Taia, his name will be struck out of the list of owners of Ngataipua. It is apparent to the. Court that Kapihana Te Tuhi and those with him have a claim by occupation equal to that of the Ngatimanuwhiri, and we therefore award them three-sixteenths of that residue left after the award to Ngatimaru, and the remaining thirteen-sixteenths to the Ngatimanuwhiri, the previously found owners. With regard to the appeal of Honi Anihana and others in the Makumaku case, we consider that the award by the previous Court does not sufficiently recognise their claims. We therefore award Honi Anihana and those joined with him at the previous Court, 300 acres to be taken on the northern part of the block, as shewn on the Makumaku plan, the boundaries to be more definitely described hereafter. With regard to Hare Renata's appeal in the Makumaku, Wairau, and Tiritiri blocks. We do not consider his claim by gift from Korohura :s at all proved, but we think that Hare Renata has proved such occupation of part of these lands aS to entitle him to a share in! Makumaku. The 944 acres 3 roods 20 perches, left after the award to the Anderson family, we divided into 94 shares, as follows: To Hare Renata and party, 5 shares; to Honi Ngakapa and party, 9 shares; to Ngatitehora, 80 shares ; the Tiritiri and Wairau blocks to remain with those found owners by the Native Land Court, and in the respective proportions so found. Hare Renata has made an appeal in the Umutawa, but we consider that his appeal in this case comes under the general Ngatimaru claim, and that the awards we have made sufficiently cover these claims, particularly as the block contains only 163 acres altogether. The awards we make in the. separate blocks will then stand as follows; Kopuraruwai: To Ngatimaru 479 acres; to the Waitaha and Marama, 958 acres 2 roodsTotal, 1437 acres 2 roods. Koukourahi: To Kgatimaru, 587 acres; to Waitaha and jiararaa, 1178 acres 1 rood—Total, 1767 ceres 1 rood. Kopuarahi; To Ngamaru, l<)20 acres; t« Waitaha and Marama. 2040 acres—Total, 3060 acres. Ngataipua: To Ngatimaru, 768 acres; to Kapihana Te Tuhi aad party, 3-16, and to Waitaha and Marama 13-16, 1538 acres—Total, 2306 acres, fcsing the approximate area remaining f.fter feat part excluded by the Native Land Court! i-roni its decision, Makumaku : Honi Amihana and party, 300 acres; Hare Renata and party 5-94, Honi Ngakapa and party 9-94, Ngatitehora 80-94, 944 acres 3 icods 20 perches—Total, 1244 acres 3 roods "20 perches. Wairau, Tiritiri, and Umutawa. Jihe decision of the Native Land Coiu-t in each of these cases is confirmed:—Pouarua Pipiroa : To Ngamaru, 1 -2530 acres; to Waitaha and Marama, 5060 acres—Total, 7590 acres. All other divisions made by the Native Land Court in these blocks, where the decision of that Court is hereby varied, are cancelled. The conductors in these cases will furnish the Court with lists of names of the proposed owners, where these alterations render it necessary, without delay, specifying in each cace the relative interest proposed to be allotted to each owner. The sums deposited as security for costs by Ngamaru, viz., £10, and by Tiwai Paraon^ and his party, viz., £10, in the Pouarua-Pipiroa appeals will be paid into the Public -Account, as costs of Court, in addition to the |ordinary fees for hearing. The sum of £5,_ paid by Mere Taipari as security ■ for costs in her apre il in j Pouarua-Pipiroa, to bo returned [to the depositaf. ' •'

rt: w>s<s.ttkd ■■<jin3.ca ■as