Rakautatahi Block.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 2715, 30 January 1892, Page 2

Rakautatahi Block.

We have little doubt that the parties to this case have a fair idea who have rights to this land, but unfortunately, like too many cases now presented to the Court, the litigants, in their anxiety to limit the rights to themselves, involve the case in perplexity. History, which in many cases is obscure, is made still more so by contradictory statements—some no doubt in ignorance—others, we fear, inventions. Passing by without remark for the preseut the gifts and conquests put forth in this case, we shall confine our remarks here to the alleged conquest by Taraia and Te Aomatarahi. The general weight of evidenoe on that point leaves us in no doubt of it. We believe that it introduced a mixed race of N. Kahungunu and Rangi Tane, which in course of time modified the position of the tribes existing at the time of that conquest. That the Rangi Tane or most of them at that time may have receded towards the Gorge is not unlikely. That some may have remained and intermarried with the N. Kahungunu is probable. And that some may have come back, and by intermarriage and other causes have maintained or re-established rights in certain parts of the district is also probable. And further, that the- descendants of those intermarriages may have come to view the fact of their rights without being particular to say or enquire from which side those rights came. Another difficulty we may remark upon here is as to occupation—visits are colored or distorted to suit demands and made to appear as acts of right, and similarly, what may have been acta of right are represented as mere visits—generalities are indulged in to cover a claim of occupation, or pure inventions are imported.

With these remarks we come to deal with the claims.

Rupuha and Pirihira and party. — These people claim Opaako and Wharawhara, but can give no boundaries or definition as to what is meant by these terms. We believe that they have a small right at Opaako in common with certain other occupants of this block. We award them an interest in the part known as Opaako—the exact position and extent of Opaako is not clear—we place it for the purpose of their location in accordance with the claim of Urupene. Pirihira said her father pointed it out as extending from a hill on the Ruahine to the plain. Urupene Puhara. —He claims also Opaako, but he includes a large extent of land in his claim. In regard to this we find (1) That the ancestors whom he sets up had no right; (2) That the hapus he puts forward had no right ; (3) That Tarawhitiwhiti fight did not affect the title to this land. But we find that Kokiritangahoe, his grandparent, was brought on to thi3 land by Kirihaunga and Whanau, husband and wife, and that he and his son, Puhara, resided on it. We are of opinion that Whanau as a N. Tangimoana was the right. We believe that the Maori committee, before whom this question was dis cussed, considered this fact as giving the right of Urupene to this part. We think, therefore, he is entitled to a small interest in the part which he claims, especially as it seems to have been admitted by Matenga and others of N. Marau. The boundaries within which we admit this party and Rupuha’s are as follow :—Commencing at the old kainga of Opako (16) on the south side of the Mahuraunui stream, up said stream and by one of its branches to Ngamoko puna a Rongotsutawhi on the Ruahines ; thence south-east to the upper waters of the Manawatu river, down said river to Te Kuri-a-Tarawhata (a root of a tree in river) ; thence across to Opako the commencement. We are of opinion that these people have some right in the part they lay claim to. But they have no independent right. We have no doubt that Matenga Kurukore made statements in their favor both on the ground and at the council meeting at Omahu. Indeed Taniora Wananga, witness for Urupene, says that three of the N. Marau, viz., Ropata Hoakakari, Matenga, and Te Hira Tuteata, said at that meeting that Te Motu o te Tatu to Poho o te Matoe was their boundary. Taniora admitted that Nepe and Hoani Ngaihi said it should be at Kohanga Karearea, somewhat farther up. By boundary we do not understand that a line of demarcation ran there between the two peoples. Tne very nature of the ground would show otherwise, there being a total absence of natural features to constitute such, inasmuch as between these two points is mostly a flat plain. What was meant, and what no doubt Matenga pointed out, was that their settlements were at or about those places, and, moreover, according to Urupene, at Te Motu o te Tatu, Matenga claimed at both sides.

We are of opinion that all those people who we say had right on this land, lived as it were in common without any boundaries ; some occupied more specially one portion or end of it. Thus we have Nepe saying that “ the line of N. Wbarcna lived at Te Umu o Kahungunu, but their pa was Horoure on the opposite side. That was their principal residence.” That is what we say, but we say that the descendants of Wharona’s brothers also had right ; we mean, of course, those entitled by occupation—who had not abandoned. But we believe that the right of the descendants of Rangi Totohu is dominant over the whole block. Witness the evidence as to Ropata Hoakakari, who, after the fight of Tarawhitiwhiti, where he had fought on the side of N. Marau against Pareihe, fled to Horoure pa. Pareihe greets him in a friendly way and advised him to remain upon his land at Horoure. We have no evidence that he was a N. Wharona and yet we find Pareihe admitting his right there.

We, therefore, are of opinion that those people have ancestral rights in that part, and we admit them in the boundaries following :—Commencing at the mouth of the Kaitiritiri stream, thence to a tree pointed out by Maika to the Court, thence to Mahuraunui stream at Opaako, thence along Urupene Puhara’s boundary to Ngamokopuna a Rangatautawhi, thence to trig 86a on the Ruahines, thence along the external bonudary of the block to the head waters of the Makaretu stream, down said stream to the commencement at the mouth of the Kaitiritiri stream. We think, however, that the occupation of some of them is slight.

Hori Niania. —As he puts forward his claim there is no doubt that he has no l ight. There seems a disposition on the part of N. Tahu to admit him as a descendant of Purerau, which according to Tanguru, he is. The question is as to occupation. Hori admits that he cannot name any of his immediate ancestors who worked on this land. His claim is, that part of this land was in the gift of Tamaiwaho and was part of Otawhao. All the other

parties deny that. Hori admits that he consented to the present boundaries of Rakautatahi.

Wo are compelled to disallow his claim. Matiu Meke. —We say that Ruatotara had no right ; nor had Whakawehi, nor Matetupu We offer no opinion whether Hine Takuwha was a child of Ruatotara. It is strongly denied. Matiu claims to be a descendant of liikarerepari, but he never lived with those people and had no ojeupation to justify any claim. We notice that in the dispute between N. Marau and A Tahu about this land, by his owu sion, he made no claim when he ~ uij, a he says, as arbitrator. We diaui a ais claim.

N. Tahu —Are the next. They no not claim as such, but as descendants of Tangimoana. They allege a gift of this block by Rangi Whakaewa to Tuhoropunga and Purerau, of N. Tangimoana, as a “ Pakuha.” We are of opinion that no such gift was made, but we admit that certain descendants of thoae people lived oo this land. The question is as to occupation. There is no doubt that some of the early descendants of those two went away. We notice that Tanguru is very liberal in his admission to this block of persons on his Bide. If, as Nepe alleges, he offered to accept admission with N. Marau for himself and family alone, his claim is not now intelligible—either in extent of land claimed, or in the number of persons for whom he advocates. Indeed, some for whom he professed to make battle and whose names appeared in his lists, repudiated any claim, and their names at their own request have been struck out. We do not believe in the alleged division between Rangiapu and Rangi Totohu. In fact, Tanguru on 16th November admitted a right in claimants at Kaikanohi. The descendants of Te Aketahi we admit as to some of them ; as to others, their occupation haß to be proved. Takapukae.— We hold the claim of these descendants to be cold, dead. Motuwhangarilci. —The person alleged by Tanguru to have been killed by a fall from a tree at Motukaikomako. Both claimants and Mr Grace’s client deny this, and claim it to have been a son of Rangi Totohu named Hawere. We disallow the names of Henare Tomoana and Pene te Uamairangi descendants of this ancestor. No occupation. These belong to Heretaungu. Karanga te Paa. —Ancestor of Hemi te Uranga. Tanguru says that Hemi lived at Whitikinui and Kaipu before the heke to Nukutaurua. He is principally N. Tahu. We admit him to a small interest.

Orihungaroa. — His descendants are disposed of in Rupuha’s claim. Tamcivohakakapea. — No right; went to Wairarapa. Though Tamehana Kauhanga lately returned thence, it was to Takapau, not to this block.

Pikihuia. —We admit her descendants to a small interest, as occupation is alleged.

There is one descendant of Purerau who appears to have had no connection with the line of Tuhoropunga. We mean Pane te Uruorangi. Nepe denies any right by occupation in this person or her parents or grand-parents. Her grandmother was Hoana te Hoki, wife of Rangi Kataepa. We know of no evidence of occupation entitling her, and meantime we must disallow it.

The Claimants , we are of opinion, have the principal right to this block. We feel it is unnecessary for us to offer any opinion as to the alleged gift to Hikarerepare. For we find that Rangi Totohu is generally admitted to have lived on this land, of which, moreover, we have evidence that he was appointed the guardian. The evidence quite satisfies us that bis was the Diana over it. From this point we think it sufficient to take our departure. We therefore recognise his descendants as having the dominant interests in this land. We also admit that certain pereons known as N. Tangimoana, N. Wharoua, N. Tuwhirirau, and N. Rangi Te Kahutia lived on it and exercised rights more or less on it. But no division existed on it, and we do not see our way to make boundaries. We award to the parties in the parts where, according to our judgment, their interests would exist. To this limit thore are two exceptions, viz., the claimants and that section of N. Tangimoana ranged under Tanguru Tuhua. We have no evidence that N. Tangimoana’s rights were confined to one part, and we therefore award the interests of these two parties over the whole block, subject, nevertheless, to the interests of the other parties. This remark does not apply to N. Wharoua, whose interests are located in the part awarded to Maika and party, but the interests of the N. Wharona in the claimants’ list are to be taken out of those awarded to the claimants.

As we cannot, for reasons stated, divide this block, we estimate the interests of the parties, taking the whole at 600 interests.

We award to Rupuha and Pirihira and party 20 interests. This will be at the part awarded to Urupene Puhara as Opaako. To Urupene Puhara and party we award in the same part 10 interests. To Maika Iwikatea and his party, we award, within his boundary, 40 interests. To N. Tahu, as members of N. Tangimoana, we award 50 interests. To the claimants we award the balance of the interests, 480

The claim put forward by Emiri Tiweka, and withdrawn, is dismissed.

If the parties will agree od the individual interests, we shall give effect to their wishes.

We have explained why we have not attempted a partition and location of interests. If the parties can arrange such we shall give effect to it.