TE AWAROA JUDGMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3123, 21 July 1892, Page 3

TE AWAROA JUDGMENT.

The following interesting judgment has lately been delivered by Judge Gudgeon in the Native Land Court now sitting at Otorohanga. From the remarks made by the judge during the delivery, he very clearly indicates that the Waikato tribe, by their foolish action in refusing to prefer their claims in times past, in deference to the mandate of King Tawhiao, have in this case, as well as in many others, allowed other tribes to interpose claims to a par-. ticipation in lands to which they have but a very weak title :— Te Ko o Rehua, on behalf of the Ngati Tamaina tribe and its various Hapus, asks the Court to partition the block of land known as Te Awaroa as shown on plan No. 6,100 and containing 5,690 acres. The applicant claims all the Northern and Western ends of the block for his share leaving only somo 2,000 acres for the Ngati Maniapoto tribe. Te Hauparoa on behalf of the Ngatimaniapoto objects to the extent of land claimed by Tc Ko o Rehua and lays down the following boundary, claiming all the land soutli of this lino :—Commencing on the Rakauhefee arm of the Rakaunui creek, and thence up the Tawairoa stream to its point of intersection by old native track to Te Awaroa, and thence by a straight line to a point between Te Waitapa Pa and Te Hautapu, thence direct to To Tahao Rangituturu, on Awaroa stream, thence down that stream to Konewarangi, and thence northerly by a straight line to Mahima, on the eastern boundary of this block.

The NgatiTamainu claim their portion of tlie land by virtue of conquest and and subsequent permanent occupation. Ngati Maniapoto claim by ancestry and occupation, the ancestors being Te Urupare and Korokino, viz., the ancestors of the Ngatikoata and Ngatitoa tribes, the original owners of this land. From the evidence given it appears tbat up to the year 1819 this land belonged to the Ngatikoata tribe, but about that date the Ngatikoata and Ngatitoa migrated under the leadership of Te Rauparaha to Kapiti, leaving only Te l?oa. ana a few of his relatives rtt the Whenuapo Pa who •were protected by Te Iliakai and the Ngatitamainu and taken to Mangauika ; that subsequently the Ngatitamainu a; id some of the Ngatimaniapoto, under Te Rangituatea occupied this land as conquerors. As to the stato of hostility between these tribes and To Rauparaha, there can be no doubt since it is a matter of history, that Te Hiahai accompanied by Mam& and other chiefs followed Te Raupataha to Waitara and were there defeated and the two chiefs slaiu. The contentions set up by HanaTare the chief witness for Ngatimaniapoto are as follows : (1) That there was no conquest, and that their right is ancestral, aud derived from Ngatikoata; (2) that the Ngatitamainu originally came here for the purpose of scraping flax, and through tho generosity of Ngatimaniapoto were ! allowed to remain on the land. These contentions are not borne out by the evidence given by the two Ngatimaniapoto witnesses, and are distinctly denied by those of Waikato. Tana te Kanawa says : " This land belonged to Ngatitoa. There was a Raupatu over it, which was not spoken of in the Rohe Potae. Before this Raupatu ve did not live here. Te Rangituatea did not come to this land until Te Rauparaha had left. The land was then clear of people. The only right Waikato has on this land is from conquest." Now this is straightforward evidence, and the court is quite aware as to why the fact of the Raupatu was suppressed during the Rohe Potae case ; it was done ■with the deliberate intention of cutting the ground from under the feet of Waikato. And now what has Hana to say as to her ancestral right? She shows that her right is derived from the fact that a woman of the Ngatikoata named Tini married Maniauriialm, of Ngfttiixianiapoto, but she also admits that their sou To Rangituatea never led a war party ft his mother's tribe, but that he dill lead his own people against the Ngatikoata, aud assisted in driving them away. It is quite clcar to the court that Te Rangituatea never had a right on these lands till To Rauparaha loft, and therurfore bis only claim is conquest. The court having decided that tho claim to this land is conquest, will lay down this ruling : That no conquest has 1.3 ana unless followed by permanent occupation. The question for the court's docisiou is, therefore, what occupation either or both of the parties tc this suit had as shown by the witnesses they have produced to ilie court ? From the evidence of Ngatimaniapoto, sve gather that siuce the year 186(5 or 1867 they have not occupied this land, but that before that date certain persons of that tribe did occupy part of the land ■n the vicinity of the Awaroa stream, and

that To Kangituatea u\t» th" ohit'f person among them. It is said th.it he was accompanied bj- the Ngati Pairangi Hapu. The evidence only discloses occupation on the banks of Te Awaroa and on the land eastward of Ruapatu and Ingarangi. Hana Tare sets up a claim to Te llewa and Patirere ; but the evidence of Te Kanawa is conclusive on this point. He says Waikato occupied those places. With the single exception of Te Tanuku, no claim to occupation of the land west and north of Patirere has been set up by Ngatimaniapoto ; when, however, the Waikato had shown their occupation, then the conductor for Ngatimaniapoto endeavoured to upset their claim. The Waikato witnesses deny that Ngatimaniapoto ever lived here by Hapus, but they admit that Te Rangituatea and a few of his relatives did live on this land, he having left his own people at Waiharakeke consequent on the killing of one Neko ; and they also admit that certain other persons of the same tribe lived here with their Ngatitamainu relatives, who were the real owners of the land.

In the opinion of the Court, the evidence discloses the following state of things, viz.: That the Ngatitamainu occupied this land shortly after Te Rauparaha migrated to Kapiti, and have continued to occupy to the present day ; that at about the same time Ngatimaniapoto occupied Waiharakeke in force, and that a few persons among them were living on this block with the Ngatitamainu, but that the Court is unable to say what their right was here. The Court is further of opinion that the Ngatimaniapoto occupation did not extend beyond the year 1565, and that it was not the occupation of a hapu, but of a few persons, probably not exceeding 20 or 30, who were under Te Rangituatea. The Court is further of opinion that the Ngatimaniapoto, by introducing about 270 names into their list, have put in a large number of persons who have no claim whatever to the land, and if they have swamped their list they have only themselves to blame. It seems almost a certainty to the Court that had the Waikato claimants behaved in a sensible manner, aud appeared before the Native Land Court in support of their claims there would have been no Ngatimaniapoto owners to dispute with them. They, however, listened to bad advice, and the consequence is that there are 270 Ngatimaniapotos in the block and Waikato are now payini; the penalty of their own foolishness. The Court has been asked to look at certain evidence given by witnrsses in theßohe Potae. The Court has dene so, but will make no remark'on that evidence at present, since it is possible that this" case may again come before the Court. It will, therefore, reserve any remarks for the benefit of those engaged in any future trial. The Court desires to thank Te Ko o Rehua for the very fair and straightforward evidence given by him. The Court awards to the Ngatimaniapoto the land within the following boundaries :—Commencing at Mahirua on the Kauri stream, and thence southeasterly by a straight line to a point where the Awaroa Stream is intersected, as shown on the plan by a line bearing 42deg. 36min., thence up the Awaroa Stream to its intersection by the southeast boundary of the block ; thence north-easterly along the said boundary to its junction with the Kauri Stream, and thence down that stream _to the point of commencement. — This nubdivision to be called Te Awaroa B Block.