JUDGMENT IN ORAHIRI NO. 2 BLOCK

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3154, 10 September 1892, Page 6 (Supplement)

JUDGMENT IN ORAHIRI NO. 2 BLOCK

« —. I dei'ixi i:io\ of i.\ti:im-;st. j Tin- case, was opened by I'epeuc KUe- I ton.- 011 the Ist day of ISD'J, -.vhen he made the following oilers in order lo pr .vent unneCjs.sary litigation ; - 'I'o 'i'e K-inav a T,-.:-,t;i'eiiaere a-:d his !,. pie, -100 ai-ie.s ; to I forop ip -.a. and ,; ii.--pe-ip'e, ."iUO-\ercs ; to I lone Umipi a-i'l his people, 200 a ires. The ease wa? then 1.1 j.,anied in order that the oiler might, be considered, with the result thar HoropapeiM accepted the (.ifer, but the Kanawa party refused. Mr Ormsliy was absent. On the followi-.g morning Tulioro, 011 behalf of 'i'e Kauawa. set up a case, which was finished the same day. On the I'll, however, Mr Ormsby appeared before the court, and claimed to he hear., on behalf of his people, for the reason that the 200 acres offered would not, in his opinion, cover the right he claimed on this block. Mari Wlienua llerangi also asked to be allowed to set up a, case on behalf of Nanrori Waaka and others (if Xgatiliineuai. These two cases occupied the court for three days, and will be the first dealt with.

After hearing the evidence in those two cases, the court can scarcely tind wonls to expiess its astonishment that Mr John Orinsby and Hari Whenua should have considered it advisable to take up the time of the court and spend their own and other persons' money during three days in contesting a claim to laud to which it is clear they have not, and never have had, a shadow of right—land to which they can only have been admitted by that system of aroha, by virtue of which the elders of Xgatimaniap-jto have been enabled to prevent their young people acquiring in any one place a sufficient quantity of land on which they could live comfortably and earn a living. This has been accomplished by admitting into the roll of owners nearly everyone but those who had a right to be there. The following is Mr Ormsby's genealogy, ov which lie shows his ancestral .-•laim on this land : — Rany.itahi Tukawekai j Ve Xohiraukcua Tc Rangikaiwiria Te Whatu r 1 1 Parepupa Tiakitai Waipuwhero XeKauwhata Whak'ainakitcrangi^Ra'gihcmonoa t I Pirakaraka I'" " I Matakorama 111 le Wakaroa I I Piaaik'j Nffapnu-Kangitia Jolm Ormsby Roaran^itia Concerning the genealogy the Court will have a good deal to say. In the evidence given during the first investigation of the title to this block it was shown most conclusively and not denied that during the lifetime of the ancestor Tiakiti a quarrel arose between Takioinoa, a descendant of Tukawekai, and the great chief of that day Te Wharaunga with the result that Takioinoa aided by Tiakiti not only raised a war party to attck the Ngatimmiapoto but also muv.lered Taifcoko, a leading chief of that tribe— for this ollunee these men were attacked and defeated at Taraingahere, Tiakiti was killed and his people driven to take shelter with the Whangatiui and other alien tribes—indeed it m:iy be said that tbev are now before the Court as owners of South Ohura. 11l the opinion of the Court this battle absolutely and finally extinguished the claim of the descendants of Tukawekai over this block.

Mr Ormsby attempts to set up a side issue to the effect that as Rangihemonoa was a lineal descendant of Tohiraukeua (the undoubted owner of this land), therefore he is entitled to claim whatever benefit there may be in descent from that ancestor—now the genealogy of Rangihemonoa here given is not admitted by the claimants as genuine—but the point is not of importance because she was the wife of Tiakiti the man who was slain by Raimituataka and her children would almost certainly be involved in the ruin that overtook the tribe when Tiakiti was slain. The Court cannot admit that Mr Ormsby can derive any right by virtue of his descent from Tiakiti no matter who the wife may have been. Mr Ormsby makes much of the fact that Parepupa, the ancestress of Ngatokowaru one of tiie leading chiefs of Ngatirangatahi was from Tukawekai and urges that fact as proof that all the descendants of that ancestor could not therefore have been driven away. This point will not assist Mr Onnsby, for he forgot to mention that Parepi'pa's husband was Kupe, a descendant of Tohiraukeua and only retained her position by virtue of that marriage The mana of Ngatokowaru over this land was beyond dispute, but it was not derived from Parepupi and therefore Mr Ormsby must at once disassociate himself from Ngatokowaru whose mana cannot assist him since their claims are not parallel. So far we have dealt with the generation down to and including that of Tiatiki, audit will now be the duty of the court to ascertain and consider what right, if any, may havo accrued to the last-mentioned chief's descendants. To do this it will only be necessary to consider Mr Ormsby's own evidence. He tells us that VVhakamulviterangi married To NVaio, of the Narfttipaiuriki tribe, and lived at To Kopun, and that their child Pirakaraka married Te Ra, of the Ngatihmewai and Ngatipaiariki tribe, and that their daughter Matakorami marriel Te Raku. of Ngatipaiariki. Hero we have three generations of the latter tribe, and it may well be Hsked what possible claim has Mr Ormsby to be considered a Ngatiransratahi, or to claim a risht to share in theland of that tribe. Nothing can bo clearer than the fact that lie is a Ngatipaiariki, and that he has not the remotest right to claim affinity with the descendants of Tohiranke.ua, who alone have an ancestral claim (o Orahirt No. 2.

That ho ever succeeded in getting himself and relatives on the roll of owners would bo astonishing were it not that in the early days of the Rohe Potae court it would appear to hava been the rule rather than the exception to crowd tho land with people who had no other claim than that of being' romotelv connected with the ancestor, and lo deceive the court as to the real position of tho applicants. It is •in this way and this way only tint, Mr Orinsby has succeeded iu becoming an owner, for hn tolls the court that when the Ngatipaiariki and other tribes fled from Ngapuhi after tho fight at Matakitaki, Te Wakaroa and Pirakaraka and their children came hither from the ICopua seeking sholter and safety, ami were received by Ngatokowaru, Pairangi, To Ringahoro and other descendants of Toliiraukeua, and th-it they lived here with other alien tribes from that date— 1823 to 1848. It is the opinion of the court that this is precisely what did happen, for it is a matter of history that aftor the disastrous defeat at Mataidtaki, the whole of the Waikato tribes were utterly disorganised, and took refugesome at Mokau and lvawliia, aud some at other places—living indiscriminately on anyone's land, and in many cases this condition of things continued even after the introduction of Christianity.

Such is the nature of Mr Ormsby's claim, who says truly : " My right to occupy is disputed, but not the fact of my having had the occupation I claim." It is this very question of the right to occupy that this Court must now decide. Mr Ormsby does not deny that while liviug on this laud they occasionally resided oil their own ancestral lands at Kopua, and that these la ids have been awarded to them by the Native Land Court, but he claims that when the Orahiri Block was lirst brought before tile Court he and Ngatoko were one and worked together : tiiis is so, but if Mr Ormsby desires the Court to infer that Ngutoko thereby admitted his right, the Court; cannot do so, for it is a cuiious fact that throughout the long investigation Ngatoko not only never once mentioned the Onr.sby family as having a claim on the land, but lie also neglected to mention them in any of the genealo-

.lies veil by him. This omission is | -ieni 1 i. -aiil, and th'" f'ourt niu-t infer that: j at" t lut time Ngaloko did not know, or at any rate recognise, lint any such riuiit existed, and therefore th it Mr Onnsby's adui 1 --ion !o the roll of owner- wa-mei-.-iy a reeoanition of tin- fact that hehad resided here tor a few years. |

The ('onri will f'llll up its deei-io-1 in ] t.i.is ease in a words : Tin* neae f ;ll a j thai the Xgatipaiariki did resile on Orahiri No. 'J for a few ye,v:.s, to which land they had no previous auce--t ral claim, can give them no possible right or title to the land so occupied. Had the descendants of Tohiraukeua intended that the X'e.-itipaiariki should a•'(jnire a perm-incut right, to this land, a formal eift of the Kainyas occupied would have been made to them. Xo such »ift is alleged. Had the Ngitipaiariki been 1 able to show that by their r. sidenee on Orahiri they had lost their title to other lands, it would still be a qno.-tioi: as to whether the Court would be justified in assuming that they had thereby gained a right on these lands. In this case the Xuatipaiariki gain nothing by living on the lands of other tribes tor -_'0 years or less, and it is equally certain that they have lost nothing. Their own ancestral lands have been awauled to them, and they can claim nothing more.

The ease set up by ilari Whenua Heransri on behalf of Waaka and others has even less foundation than that just dealt with. Hero there is no pretension of descent from Raiigatahi, We are told that the Waaka family are Ngatihinewai pure and simple and as such are owners in the Otoroh -nj:a block. This claim is in fact ba ed solely on the occupation of this laud by Te Waaka during which period he is said to have lived with l.is friend Te Kawa. Hari Whenua asserts that this occupation was prior to tho Matakitaki defeat, but, the claimants' witnesses assert that To Waaka did eoine with one of the many Hekes fro-n Matakitaki, the point is, however, of small importance. In this case as in the last To Waaka lost nothing by his occupation, and in like manner will gain nothing. The ruling of the Court on this point is : — Tho fact of havinsr occupied any given tract of land will give tho occupier no title as against tho rightful owners, unless it can be shown, that there was a right of some sort existing prior to the occupation. Such prior rights might bo either descent from the ancestor lo whom land was aw-rded or gift.

Where there has been a gift subsequeul to the occupation, the claim would pro. perly be under that head,

Where the occupation has commenced previous to the year IS4O and extended to the present day, the prior right should be presumed. The Court will award the shares in accordance with this decision.

During the first, investigation of title to this block, Te Kauawa who was the claimant, sot up R ingatahi and Puha as the ancestors from whom the title to this land was derived, and subsequently Hftna Taaro and others forced him to add thereto Tohiraukeua.

The interest of Paha has already been cut out and is moreover so small that it need not be noticed, here we have only to do with tho conflicting claims of tho.se descended from Uangatahi.

In the judgment delivered in this ease the following passage:—" It has been after the first hearing, there occurs shown that the principil occupation on this l.inil West of Waitomo lias been by Hauparoa, Ngatoko and others of the Nsratirangatahi," if for this tribe the words—descendants of Tohiraukena —had been substituted as was probably intended this Court would freely endorse the statement. Since it is clear that tbe only right that Te Kanawa and those claiming with him can have on this laud is derived from the conquest of Te Wharaunga over the descendants of Tnkawekai, and not from ancestral right. It must be clear to everyone who has heard the evidence that Rangatalii ought not to have been put forward as the principal ancestor on this block, for this reason, that only one of his five children, viz., Tohiraukena, has held mana over this land down to the present time, but it is nlao obvious why ho was set up, for Te Kanawa is not a descendant of Tohiraukena, vide genealogy. Kangvitahi. f, Urunumia, Te Ivawa Tumarouru f. Te Kan,iwa, Whiiapare Tutunili To Wharaunga Taumaim l\ui£o 'I u NVliare Tu Kanawa Of these three children of Rangatalii it is shown that Hekeiterangi went away to Wailcato and married ■ there ; that Tumarouru married into the Ngatikikairo tribe, and her daughter Whaiapari had no right on this land, and that Urunumia also went away and married Te Kawa. Moreover, it is clear that up to the time of Te Whaiaunga, none of these people pretended to havo a claim to the land. Then, however, the last-named chief having in combination with all Ng'itimaniapoto attacked and driven away the descendants of Tukawekai, took possession of the south-eastern end of Ornhiri No '> liv light of conquest, and not as To Kin.iwa no.v alleges, by imucstrui right. Te Kanawa does not deny that, of all tile descendants of the three children of Rangatalii mentioned in his geneahiify, only a few of To Wharaunga's descendants have a right on this block. This is in itself proof positive that the right is not ancestral, but by conquest. The only question then i«, what laud was conquered ? Most certainly that of Toliikfiutena wa« not ; moreover, Te Kanawa can only claim the conquered land occupied by him and this so far as the evidence discloses did not extend much beyond the western bank of the Waitomo stream. There is reason to believe that the mana of Te Kanawa extended over most of the descendants of Tohiraukeua, but that maua did not at any time extend to the land on which those persons resided.

The Court awards to Te Kanawha and party, 500 acres in South-east corner of Unihiri, No. 2. To Horopapei'a Ihaknra and party, 500 acres on southern boundary of Block west of Te Kanawa's award, To .John Ormshy acd party, 200 acres in neighbourhood of Mokotanoa on southern boundary, and ty the remaining owners the balance of this block.