NATIVE LAND COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1834, 8 April 1884, Page 2

NATIVE LAND COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Ykstkrd vy.— (Before their Honours Chief Judge Macdonald and Judge Puckey and Assessor Waata Tipa.)

TE WHKTU JUDGMENT. The evidence in this case having been completed on Saturday last, their Honoms delivered judgment yesterday morning as follows :— This claim was set up by Ngahoki te Kawau, of Ngatiwawau, who stated that thib land had been taken by conquest from Ngatihaumia by Tukiterangi, and that it had been continuously occupied by the Ngatiwawau without molestation until the present time. On counter-claimants being called three appealed. 1. Wivemu To Whitu, who clanned under Maihi and Matau. 2. Pore Motunau, who claimed under Maihi. 3. Aiekatera Rongo Whitiao, who claimed under Maihi and Huia. 4. Maihi te Ng.viu, who claimed as the direct male descondent of Maihi (son of Tamatewhaua) by his son Hongina, to whom he alleged a gift of the land had been made by Maihi, the ancestor. Pore Motunau and Avekatera coalesced, and their joint case was conducted by the latter, leaving three distinct counter-claims. The counterclaimants, one and all, based their claims on the conquest of the Ngatikohupungapungatube, who, they alleged, weie the oi lginal owneib, by Ngatiraukawa, under Pipito T.unatewhana and other chiefs, and undisturbed poi-se^ionand occupation ever since by their descendants. All paities, both claimant and counter-claimants, agieed this was part of the same block as Whetu No. 1. Wiremu te Wlntu admitted the claim set up by Arekatora, whilst he objected to that preferred by Maihi, as well as that bi ought forward by the claimant. Aiekateia. objected to the claim of Wiremu te W'ntu, Maihi te Ngaia and the claimant, but admitted that Maihi had a go.id claim, though not tlnongh Hangina, also that Ngahaki was an owner through I descent fioni T.nawa, son of Maihi, the \ ancestor and husband of Hinekioie, gianddaughtei of Tv Kiterangi. Maihi te Ng.ua objected to tho claims set up by the claimant and the other counter-claimants, and said this paicel of land was given by Maihi, tho ancestor, to his sou Hangina (by his Ngatnaukawa -wife Keteo), and th.vt lm section of Ngatimaihi was the ie.il Nga-ti-maihi, as he was in direct mail descent fioni Maihi through Hangina, his eldest son, and that they, and they only, owned the land. The fact that some generations back a conquest of this pait of the countiy by Ngatilaukawa took place ha* been sworn to many times without any one daimg to dispute it, and has, we think, been pioved beyond question, and that it extended beyond thib block to Te Ranga is clear ; in fact the paicel of land the subject of this inquiry is very neaily sun ounded by land awuided to the descendants of the Ngatiraukawa, conqueroi.s in vntue of that conquest. We will now briefly leview the history of the alleged conquest by Ngatiwawau ab disclosed by the evidence. Some nine generations back Ngatiwawau weie living at Mokoia, an island in Rotorua Lake. A feud arose between Tukiteiungi and Uenu- i kukopako, because of a dog which the form oi had killed. A fight took place, in which Ngatiwawau, the tiibe of Tukitelangi, weie woi&ted. They tied piecipitately from Mokoia. So hot \va« their haste, though not puibiied by their enemy, that they left their weapons of war and then veiy g.iiments behind them. They found their way to Kupenga, where they were treated with kmdnsss and hospitality by the Ngatihaumia. Theie they lived peaceably for some time, cultivating side by side with the tangata wlienua at Opakau until after having possessed themselves of w eapons, and wishing to impiove their position they built apa at Poha. The Ngatihaumia, it would appear, did not think of disturbing them in their labours, though seeing them day after day woiking at the parapets, but waited quietly till the pa was finished. Doubtless it was a laboiious undei taking, as the work was done with rude wooden implements, and that it took consideiabletimeto accomplish can scarcely be doubted, but be that as it may, it would appeal it did not dawn on the minds of Ngatihaumia what the Wawaus wore at till tho pa was completed, and then finding that the lefugees wished to dispossess them of their iuhentance, they made up their minds to attack them ; they did so, and sutteicd a disastious lepulse. The Wawaus followed up then victoiy, and drove the Ngatilunmia out of their own country to Makatahi, oi what is now known as the Patotere block, whence they were driven off by Nejatikea, and compelled by .stern necessity to sue for nieicy and protection fiom the very people who had so lately tieated them with &uch base ingratitude. The Ngatiwawau ha,\mg subdued the Ngatihiumna became the owneis of Kupenga, which includes tins block and the whole of a large part of Whetu No. 1, The principal witness brought forward by Mr Ransfield, who was admitted to have title with the claimant conducted their joint case, contended that this inclusion of their people was piior to the conquest of Ngatikahupungapunga by Raukawa, and on such a basis alone could the claim be sustained. We are told, also, by Tekerei te Whanake, that it was Uenuku Kopoko who drove Tukiterangi from Mokoia, the same Uenuku Kopoko who visited Kapu. Now as Kapu was the gieat-grandson of Pipito, one of the Raukawa conquering chiefs, to bear out this theory Uennkukopako must have been an infant of tender age when he drove out Ngatiwawau, and a very old man, bowed with yearn, when he visited Kapu. Accepting, therefoie, these traditions to have some tiuth, and we know that in the matter of their genealogies the Maoris are scrupulously particular, the contention that the Wawau incursion was piior to tho Raukawa, conquest is, we think, untenable. That being so, it seems impossible that a Wawau conquest of Ngatihaumia, whereby they became possessed of this block ever took place, and we therefore dismiss the claim of Ngahaki through Tukiterangi. As to the case set up by Wiremu Te Whitu, it has been clearly proved that some generations back his section of Ngatimatau became incorporated with Ngatihaua, and never exercised the rights of ownei-ship over this land, his claim is therefore dismissed. With respect to the case set up by Maihi te Ngaru, it appears to us very doubtful that the alleged gift of their block by Maihi, the ancestor to Hangina, ever happened, and we therefore dismiss the claim. The priority of the Raukawa conquest, having to our minds being established^ and the allegations by all the counter-claimants that this was part of the tract of country which fell to the share of Tamatewhana, having been proved to our entire satisfaction by the evidence now adduced, and confirmed to some extent by previous judgments of this court, in the soundness of which decisions we concur. We find that such of the descendants of Maihi by his children Tiawa, Pareunuora and Te Ruwai as, can prove occupation on this block or Whetu No. 1, of which this forms part, either personal or through their immediate forbears are the owners of the land before the court.

Mr F. J. Yon Sturmcr, creditors' trustee in the estate of William Curamrnfr, calls a meeting of creditors for Monday, April 21st, at 2 o'clock In the afternoon. You will do well to furnish your house rorc' Garlick and Cranwell's. They have now the most complete Furnishing Warehouse in Auckland, furniture to suit all classes, good strong, and cheap. They have Tapestry Carpets irom 2s 3d per yard, Brussels from 3s lid per yard, Linoleum from 3s 9d to ss, Oil Cloths from Is 6d to 4s 6d per yard, good 12 feet wide Oil Cloths at 3s 6d per ya.rd. Immense assortment of Iron Bedsteads from Infants' Cots to 5 feet wide half- tester Bedsteads. Double iron Bedsteads from 255. 480 Bedsteads in stock to select from. Beddings of all kinds and sizes kept in readiness. Dining, Sitting, Drawing-room B'urniture, and and a large assortment of Manchester and Furnishing: Goods, including a lot of Cretonnes., Book Catalogues sejji free to intending: purchasers, Garlick an,4_ Gr»nv»eU, City a*tt Arcade. Qiweo'itwt AucWaMi