THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK: MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THE NATIVE APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF "THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK ACT, 1896." [In continuation of G.-2, Sess. II., 1897.]

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1898 Session I, G-02a

G.—2a

1898. NEW ZEALAND.

THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK: MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THE NATIVE APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF "THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK ACT, 1896." [In continuation of G.-2, Sess. II., 1897.]

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

Levin, Fbiday, 9th April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge (presiding); W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. The Court announced that the business before it was the application of Ngatiraukawa to set apart certain reserves in Horowhenua No. 11 for the four hapus named in the Horowhenua Block Act. Mr. Morison appeared for Ngatihikifcanga, Ngatipareraukawa, and Ngatiparekohatu. The Court read out the several applications, and asked Wirihana Hunia and Baraku Hunia to explain the object of their applications Nos. 10 and 13, and suggested that as many as possible of the Ngatiraukawa should amalgamate their cases. Mr. Morison said the general grounds of claim were the same. There would, he thought, be no difficulty until the question of relative interests were gone into. He hoped Mr. Bansfield's application would nob be allowed to lapse on account of his absence. The Court informed him that Mr. Bansfield's application would not be allowed to lapse. Sir W. Buller wished to know when the Court proposed to go on with the accounts. The Court said it intended to go into the question of accounts as soon as the Ngatiraukawa claims had been disposed of. Sir W. Buller asked the Court to take the question of accounts with Horowhenua No. 11. Mr. J. M. Eraser had to leave for Auckland, and he could not go on without him. The Court said Horowhenua Nos. 11 and 12 could not come on until after the Easter holidays, as it would be necessary to send notice to all the persons interested. There would be no objection to the question of accounts being taken with No. 11 immediately after Easter. Mr. J. M. Fraser regretted he was obliged Co leave on business, but he would return in time to go on with the accounts when the Court resumed after the vacation. The Court called on parties to proceed with Ngatiraukawa claims for reserves in No. 11. Sir W. Buller appeared for Kemp, to oppose Ngatiraukawa claim. Mr. McDonald appeared for Himiona Kowhai, and, on behalf of Mr. Stevens, for Wirihana and Warena Hunia, to oppose the claim. Mr. J. M. Fraser appeared for Bangimairehau and the others who had signed his retainer. He opposed the claim. Mr. Knocks did not wish to set up a separate claim for his clients. He would not ask to do so if, when lists of names were put in, their names were included. Hamuera Karaitiana and Henare te Apatari agreed to place their cases under Mr. McDonald, as they all had the same obiect — i.e., to keep out the Ngatiraukawa. Mr. McDonald asked the Court to decide the order, of cross-examination. The Court said it would suit the convenience of parties if Sir Walter Buller cross-examined first, Mr. J. M. Eraser next, and then Mr. McDonald. Mr. Morison, being the assailant, would commence. Henare te Apatari asked the Court to give counsel and conductors a short time to consult together, with a view to the amalgamation of cases. The Court would like Wirihana and Baraku to explain their applications before Mr. Morison commenced his case. Mr. McDonald stated that Wirihana did not draw the application, and explained that it did not refer to the reserves applied for by Ngatiraukawa, but to certain inalienable reserves he intended to ask the Court to make in No. 11. Te Baraku's application had the same object.

I—G. 2a.

G.—2a

2

Application by Ngatiraukawa, undbe Section 8 of " The Hoeowhenua Block Act, 1896," THAT CEBTAIN BeSEBVES BE SET APART FOii THEM IN HOEOWHENUA No. 11. Mr. Morison: I propose to open shortly, or as shortly as possible. The first fact I wish to emphasize is that there were two distinct branches of Ngatiraukawa —one represented by Te Whatanui, the other identified with Te Bangihaeata, two distinct sections (vide Horowhenua Commission Beport, page 315, for skeleton genealogy showing different lines from Parikohata and Pariraukawa). Ngatipariwahawaha was the name applied to Te Whatanui's people as distinguished from Bangihaeata's. Whatanui and people occupied near Horowhenua Lake. Bangihaeata and his people occupied southern portion of block. There was a boundary laid down between Whatanui's and Te Bangihaeata's people by Topeora, Bangihaeata's sister, known as " the Mahoenui boundary," running from Bakauhamama, on the beach, through the Bakauhamama Lagoon eastward to Mahoenui. When Horowhenua was investigated by the Court the Muaupoko did not claim south of this boundary. They did not claim Bangihaeata's land. Boundary given on page 305 of Horowhenua Commission shows that this boundary was recognised by Muaupoko. I will show by Kemp's testimony that no claim was made prior to 1873 for land south of this boundary. In 1873 Mr. Travers was appointed a Commissioner by the Government to inquire into the dispute between Kemp and the Ngatiraukawa. My examination of Kemp on his evidence before Mr. Travers appears on pages 185 and 186 of Horowhenua Commission [evidence read]. History of block shows that the only disputes were about land within these boundaries. My contention is that Kemp's evidence corroborates evidence I shall refer to that Mahoenui boundary was the division between the Whatanui and Bangihaeata sections. After Court of 1873 an application was made by Ngatiraukawa for a rehearing. It was optional for Government to grant or refuse application. Ngatiraukawa remained in occupation of land south of Hokio Stream. They were principally Whatanui's people, but Te Puke was there. Muaupoko raided Ngatiraukawa, and burnt their houses. There were two burnings—once before and once after Court. I will refer to Baniera te Whata's evidence (Horowhenua Commission, page 101) [read]. In 1873, for about three months, the Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa were under arms. Both built pas; the Ngatiraukawa pa was south of Hokio. The Ngatiraukawa of Otaki came up to support descendants of Whatanui. Early in 1874 Sir Donald McLean came up to Otaki to endeavour to settle the dispute. Befer to evidence of John Stevens (Horowhenua Commission, page 220, questions 240 to 250) [read] . This will show that there was a serious difficulty. I can place before Court an official report of what took place at Otaki (G.-3, 1874). [Beads from report to show that Sir Donald McLean negotiated separately with two distinct branches of Ngatiraukawa.] What took place was this : After meeting Sir Donald McLean persuaded Ngatiraukawa to accompany him to Wellington. Hunia went with separate escort. What took place in Wellington Nicholson gives in detail in his evidence. An agreement was come to for settlement of claims of both sections of Ngatiraukawa. Two agreements were signed on different days (vide Horowhenua Commission, page 9). First dispute apparently settled was that with Bangihaeata's people, on the 9th February, 1874 [reads agreement]. This is quite different from settlement with Whatanui's people, made on the 11th day of February, 1874. I wish to emphasize that the Mahoenui boundary is identical with that claimed by Kemp, before Mr. Travers, as his southern boundary. Ngatiraukawa made persistent claims to land awarded to Muaupoko. Sir Donald McLean came to Otaki to settle it, and took the people to Wellington. The Government paid £1,050 in cash. Kemp undertook to provide certain reserves [Kemp's undertaking read] . The fact that it was stipulated by Government that the reserves should not be sold or mortgaged showed that the reserves were intended for the occupation and maintenance of the four hapus, not merely nominal reserves, but of a substantial nature, for the benefit of these people. I will refer shortly to report of Horowhenua Commission re these reserves. The Commission did not distinguish between Whatanui's people and Bangihaeata's people [reads from page 11 of report]. They erroneously treat the two agreements as one. People in Schedule 3 are, with one or two exceptions, different from those who signed the agreement of the 9th February, 1874. No reasons for saying that persons in Schedule 3 should have the 80 acres because an agreement was made with another set of people altogether. The Legislature has recognised that it cannot be a carrying-out of the agreement of the 9th February, 1874. This Court is now empowered to fix the extent of reserves, Parliament having recognised the justice of giving the owners of No. 9 the 80 acres and to the four hapus of Ngatiraukawa reserves in No. 11. Parliament would not have passed the clause if it had not intended that the four hapus should get something substantial. If Parliament had had definite information it might have fixed the limits of the reserves as it had for the 80 acres. I claim for my clients that the words in agreement " between Papaitonga and the sea " cannot be words of limitation, but must simply indicate generally the locality. They indicate an eastern and western limit. No indication that " between Papaitonga and the sea" means that we must not go north of Papaitonga. I am going to ask the Court to give my clients all the land lying between Papaitonga and the sea —the Mahoenui boundary on the north and Waiwiri Stream on the south. It cannot have been intended by the Government, the Natives, or Kemp that these reserves should be other than substantial reserves. It was not intended to confine the reserves to valueless sandhills. I will now point out evidence given before the Boyal Commission, upon which I rely : Horowhenua Commission, page 42, et seq., Warena te Hakeke; page 70, Donald Fraser; page 101, B. te Whata; page 104, M. te Bangimairehau; page 109, Kerehi Tomo; page 113, H. McDonald; page 187, Kemp; page 198, J. McDonald. These witnesses were all called by others, not by me. I will read evidence of those called by me : Horowhenua Commission, pages 202 to 206, Nicholson [read] . (The arrangement made in 1874 was an alternative to a rehearing. In those days the granting or refusing of a rehearing was looked at as a question of State policy, and not from the

3

G.—2a

point of view of the rights of parties.) Horowhenua Commission, pages 221, 222, Heni te Eei [read]; page 222, Nicholson to Chairman [read]; pages 222, 223, Baiha Puaha [read]; page 235, Bopata Banapiri [read]. The Ngatiparekohatu appear on Horowhenua Commission, page 116. I will read my list of names :— Ngatiparekohatu: Wirihana (d.), Heni te Bei, Buiha (d.), children of Matene te Whiwhi. Wirihana is dead, and leaves two children—Bangihaeata Wirihana and Biria Wirihana. Buiha is also dead, and left six children, viz. : Pani Bene, Mere Pitiera Taipua, Hara Ngawati, Pipi Nga, wati, Ani Ngawati, and Erana Ihaka. The children of Heni te Bei are Wirihana te Bei, Pipi te BeiMatene te Bei, and Wani te Bei. Heni te Bei wishes her four children to go in with her. Baiha Puaha, Bawiri Puaha (son of Baiha), Hakaraia Tuatete, IniaTuatete, Mohi te Bauparaha, Erenora Tungia, Wi Neera. These are all of Ngatiparekohatu. Ngatihikitanga: Matenga Moroati, Hihira Moroati, Bakera te Paea, Matilda Morgan (daughter of Bakera), Perawiti te Puke. Children of Perawiti te Puke : Nerehana Perawiti, Te Puke Perawiti, Whakarau Perawiti, Te Kaharunga Perawiti, Maikuku Perawiti, Hitau Perawiti, Mereana Perawiti, Bangiwhiua te Puke (sister of Pera), and Hura Ngahue. The last named has always lived with Te Puke, and will go in with Perawite te Puke. Ngatipareraukawa: Tauteka, Kararaina, Hitau, and Wharetini claim from their uncle, Aperahama te Buru. I know nothing of Ngatikahoro. I will call Neville Nicholson. Neville Nicholson sworn. Witness : My Maori name is Te Aohau. I claim descent from Pareraukawa, but he is not the " take "to this land. The Ngatipareraukawa have rights to land south of Mahoenui boundary. Their claim is through Aperahama te Buru, elder brother of their father, Tuainuku. Aperahama te Buru is descended from Wahineiti, elder brother of Pareraukawa. Can give genealogy [does so]. Nerehana te Paea had no children of his own ; he adopted two—Kinewe Boera and Hautawaho. Aperahama te Buru lived at Waiwiri. Tauteka had no children. Kararaina's children are —Kararaina, Neville Nicholson, Ema Nicholson, Howard Nicholson, and Eruera Nicholson. Hitau had no children. Waretini had—Hukiki, Tiaria, Hautawaho (adopted by Nerehana), and Heni. I was grown up .at time of disputes in 1874. Te Puke, Nerehana, and Waretini (the sisters of Te Puke and Bakera Bangiuia) occupied the land between Waiwiri and Mahoenui in my time, up to the time of the disputes. I heard from Te Puke, Boera, and Watene that Topeora, Bangihaeata, and Te Paea lived there formerly. When I was very young many people lived there, but some returned north. Matene te Whiwhi, Tauteka, and Aperahama te Buru used to come to Waiwiri to fish for eels. Erana Bauparaha lived at Mahoenui and Waiwiri when I married her. Her father was Bauparaha 11. Kinewe and Te Hautawaho lived with Nerehana te Paea permanently on this land. I know Hura: he lived with Te Puke and others at Mahoenui and Waiwiri. I heard that Topeora, Te Paea, Te Whatanui, and Maianewa laid down the Mahoenui boundary. The Muaupoko did not occupy south of Mahoenui boundary before 1873, nor have they since, unless they have gone there recently. I lived at Horowhenua and Otawhaowhao permanently at time of disputes. None of the Muaupoko ever cultivated or collected food south of the boundary in my time ; they may do so now. Aperahama te Buru gave his rights at Muhunoa to his sister Paranihia. Muhunoa to Waiwiri was all one land formerly. After Horowhenua was heard it was divided. Waretini was the only descendant of Tuainuku who got into Waiwiri; his sisters gave their rights to him. The post denoting Mahoenui boundary is still standing on the coast. Te Bua-o-te-whatanui, another point on the boundary, can be seen now. Mahoenui is the most suitable place in the locality for cultivation and residence. There are also kaingas at a place called Waiwiri, near the sea. The Mahoenui boundary runs through Mahoenui and Otawhaowhao. The country is sandy near the beach, opposite Waiwiri Lake. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Mr. J. M. Fraser: No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: The whole of Manawatu- Kukutauaki was before Court of 1873 in one block. The whole of this territory was awarded to Ngatiraukawa except Horowhenua and Tuwhakatupua. The boundaries of Horowhenua were not defined in judgment, but they were set out in the claim. The Court sat immediately after, I think, to ascertain the nominal owners of Horowhenua. I did not give evidence. Waretini did, and other elders of Ngatiraukawa. I think they claimed the land by gift from Te Bauparaha, not from Whatanui. One hundred acres awarded to them. I think the Mahoenui boundary was mentioned in Court. Our elders did not know at time of that Court that Muaupoko claimed to Waiwiri. Watene and Waretini opposed the survey of southern boundary of Horowhenua until 1878, when they withdrew their opposition on Kemp telling them that the reserves could not be defined until the survey was complete. To Court: Waiwiri and Mahoenui were the only cultivations between Mahoenui boundary and Waiwiri. In my time the Waiwiri cultivations were south of southern boundary of Horowhenua, but I was told that in olden times north of Waiwiri Stream was cultivated. Mahoenui. Waiwiri, and Bakauhamama were worked up to time of disputes in 1873. In my time we only fished at Bakauhamama. I was one of those who signed the agreement mentioned by Mr. Morisori this morning. I knew the contents of it when I signed it. Sir Donald McLean explained it to us. I remember the contents now. We signed it after the meeting between Sir Donald McLean and ourselves, when he told us that Kemp had agreed to give us 1,300 acres. He then turned to Te Puke and said, " Your land has been sold by your father and Te Hukiki. I will now pay you £1,050 as the balance of the price." Watene said he had thought that all his land would have

G.—2a

4

come back to him, or, failing that, that a rehearing would have been granted. Matene te Whiwhi and Tamihana te Bauparaha stood up and advised Watene not to press the matter. Next day, or the day following, Mr. Booth and Mr. Young came to us, and we signed the agreement. It was read out to us in Maori when we signed. The promise of reserves induced us to sign it. Ido not remember it being stipulated that the reserves were to be between Papaitonga and the sea. I thought the reserves would be at Waiwiri and Mahoenui. I at one time thought we should have all the land claimed for us by Mr. Morison this morning, but after what the Commissioners said about it I cannot expect it. I know that the Commissioners recommended that the 80 acres should be in extinguishment of the Ngatiraukawa claim, but that would be wrong. I consider it only fulfils the promise made by Kemp of 1,300 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The cultivations at Mahoenui were extensive. The reserves were spoken of in 1886 at Palmerston. I said this before the Commission ; so did Kemp. Te Puke corresponded with the Government about the reserves after the agreement of 1874, as Te Watene did about the 1,300 acres. Heni te Bei sworn. Witness : I am the daughter of Matene te Whiwhi. I know Mahoenui. I have heard of boundary running from Bakauhamama to Mahoenui. It was laid down by Topeora and Te Whatanui as a boundary between them. The land south of the boundary was Bangihaeata's; he kept it for himself after Ngatiraukawa took possession of it. Ngatiparekohatu was his principal hapu. Topeora and Bangihaeata were the descendants of Pareraukawa who occupied the land. Topeora's children lived on it. Bia Waitohi used to go there to her elders. Hoani Tuatete occupied. Erana Bauparaha lived there permanently. Erenora Tungia cultivated there. Te Bauparaha used to go there to visit Te Bangihaea.ta. I did not go to Wellington with Matene and others at time of dispute in 1874. When they returned I heard that Sir Donald McLean had given them some money, and that he and Kemp had promised them the reserves we are now speaking of. I heard Matene te Whiwhi ask Kemp to survey the reserves. Kemp was a friend of his. I have also asked Kemp for the reserves. I asked him at Otaki. He replied that the lawyers were arranging it. Waiwiri was not an ancestral boundary. It is a new boundary of Kemp's ; the land belonged to us. The land lying south of the Horowhenua boundary belonged to Ahikaramu. I am one of the owners of it now. It was originally all one land until Kemp's boundary cut it in two. I remember meeting Kemp at Waikanae. I spoke to him then in Wi Parata's house; his Wanganui people were with him. I think it was the year Taipua's daughter died, or the year Wi Parata's wife died; I forget which. Cross-examined by Sir Walter Buller. Witness: I spoke to Kemp about the reserves because I had heard that he and Sir Donald McLean had agreed to give us reserves. I first spoke to Kemp about them either when Wi Parata's wife or Taipua's daughter died. I signed a petition when Hoani Taipua was a member of Parliament praying that Horowhenua and Waiwiri might be reopened. I have not written to the Government about the reserves. I looked to Kemp. I believed the matter rested with Kemp and Sir Donald McLean. I have not spoken to Muaupoko about it. Mr. J. M. Fraser : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : My father told me when he returned from Wellington that Kemp and Sir Donald McLean had promised us some reserves in the Horowhenua Block. To Court: I have been at Waiwiri; not at Mahoenui. I have been to Bakauhamama. I lived permanently at Waiwiri, at the Ngatihikitanga kaingas. Outside of this block—south of it. I only went to Bakauhamama as a visitor. Bauparaha used to visit Te Bangihaeata. He never lived on this block. Bangihaeata lived at Waiwiri, the part where I lived. Matene te Whiwhi lived at Waiwiri, south of southern boundary of Horowhenua. It was all one land in those days. My relatives, Topeora and others, lived at Mahoenui. The Court adjourned till the 10th instant.

Levin, Saturday, 10th April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11: Application by Ngatiraukawa under subsection (d), section 8, of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896." Mr. Ransfield said he had heard outside that his application had been sent in too late. The Court informed Mr. Bansfield that his application was in time. Mr. Morison : I will call Hura. Hura Ngahue sworn. Witness : I live at Papaitonga. I was born there. I know Kemp's boundary at Waiwiri as laid down by Court in 1873. I know a boundary north of this, from Bakauhamama to Mahoenui. Can give names of all kaingas between those boundaries. There is a cultivation at Mahoenui, near Papaitonga Lake. There were houses there when the land was cultivated. Topeora, Te Paea, Aperahama te Buru, Hikake, Waitohi, Te Bauparaha, and many others cultivated there. There were other cultivations at Otawhaowhao, near the boundary from Bakauhamama to Mahoenui. The same people cultivated there. Bakauhamama was a fishing kainga. Whakamate was another kainga on the north side of Waiwiri Stream, some distance north of lake. Our elders lived there,

5

G.—2a

and caught eels and cultivated. I know Waiwiri kainga. It is on north side of Kemp's boundary. I think Heni te Bei was mistaken if she said it was south of Kemp's boundary. I remember dispute in 1874. I was living at Muhunoa then. There were people living at Waiwiri at that time on this land. Te Puke was the elder living there; Waretini, myself, and others were with him. The trouble of 1874 arose between Watene and Muaupoko. Bemember houses being burnt at Kohuturoa, and afterwards at the boundary of Otawhaowhao. The houses at Te Puke and others were burnt at latter place by Muaupoko, who also destroyed the cultivations and fences. The potatoes growing were pulled up. I can give names of eel-pas between the boundaries :Te Karaka, an eel-pa on the Waiwiri Stream, near Papaitonga; Te Kahika, another eel-pa further down the stream ; Te Mapau, an eel-pa ; Te Whakamate, an eel-pa; Te Bere, an eel-pa ; Te Karetu, an eel-pa; Whakamaungaariki, an eel-pa ; Te Uku, an eel-pa; Te Karamu, an eel-pa. Latter is near the sea. They are all on Waiwiri Stream. The people I have mentioned made use of these eel-pas. Eels caught in the pas were sent to Matene te Whiwhi. I never saw Muaupoko catching eels at these pas. Never heard that they did. Muhunoa has always been my home. Aperahama te Buru had a claim to the land between the boundaries. He had cultivations there. There were fights in old times between Ngatiraukawa and Muaupoko at Papaitonga. Some of those I have mentioned took part in them. Matene te Whiwhi used to live at Waiwiri and Mahoenui at times, but his principal kainga was at Otaki. His mana was over the land. Chiefs did not work. All the people I have named leased the land. Ido not think any others joined in the lease. Hikake was my aunt. She adopted me, and I lived with her. John Knocks was the lessee of the land at time of disputes. I believe so. Hector McDonald's sheep were running north of Waiwiri Stream in 1874. He had the lease of the land north of the stream. Te Puke Matene leased it to him. Te Whatanui leased the land north of Mahoenui boundary to McDonald. Te Puke lived at Waiwiri on this land, after he returned from Wellington in 1874, until his death in 1886. I heard of an agreement to give Ngatiraukawa reserves on this land. Heard Te Puke, Nicholson, and others who went to Wellington speak of it. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : What does it matter to you who my mother was. Ngahue was my father. He was a Ngatimaihi, hapu of Ngatiraukawa. Ngahue joined the Ngatiraukawa in the conquest of this country. They claimed the land by conquest. My father lived at Otaki; he left me with his sister. I have no personal claim to this land. I claim with the others because we cultivated together. Te Puke claimed the land in 1873 for Hikake and others. I was at Court of 1873. The Ngatiraukawa claimed from Bakauhamama southwards to boundary of Muhunoa No. 3. Te Puke did not speak in the Court at Foxton in 1873. I did not hear any of these now claiming with me prefer a claim to this land in Court of 1873. I did not hear at Court of 1873 that Muaupoko boundary commenced at Waiwiri. I heard the Court say that the land down to Waiwiri was awarded to Muaupoko. I lived at Muhunoa with Te Puke from time of Court until the survey was made. I remember the survey of Waiwiri; I was there. We spoke of the boundary being wrong before survey was made, and determined to resist the survey. I accompanied Te Puke to mouth of Waiwiri Stream when Kemp put his post up there. We made threats against Kemp then. Kemp told us that if we allowed the surveys to be made he would provide reserves; that is why we allowed it to proceed. Te Puke went to Waiwiri to prevent the post being put up. I did not hear Kemp say to Te Puke that he had come to put up the post, as he had informed him he would do. It was an iron post that was put in. It is there now. There was no dispute about it other than I have mentioned. The surveyors were there at the time. I heard that a post was put in by Ben Stickels previously, some distance south of Waiwiri It was in 1874 that Te Puke and others ceased to live at Mahoenui. The houses were built long before Court at Foxton. The houses burnt at Otawhaowhao in 1873 were erected before the judgment of the Court in 1873. I say this on my oath. Otawhaowhao was cultivated year after year to 1874. I cultivated there myself in 1873, and before. The houses were burned in 1873, before the Court commenced. The Muaupoko burnt them. I cannot say who their chiefs were. There were so many in the party. It was in 1873 the houses were burnt—just about time of Court, just before the Court gave judgment. Otawhaowhao is the name of a kainga and a lake. Mahoenui is name of locality. I have not heard who gave Otawhaowhao its name. Te Watene's houses at Kohuturoa were those burnt before the Court of 1873. The houses on boundary at Otawhaowhao were burnt in 1873, after Te Watene's. I cannot say how long after. They were not burnt at the same time. Watene's houses were burnt before the Court of 1873. The houses at Otawhaowhao were burnt before the Court of 1873 gave judgment—before we went to the Court. Watene's houses were also burnt before the Court. I am positive of this. We did not set up any claim to this land at Court in 1873 because the Muaupoko did not claim south of Bakauhamama in the Kahiti. lam sure of this, although I have not seen the Kahiti, or spoken to any one about, since 1873. lam still living at Muhunoa, the place where Te Puke lived before 1873 and down to the time of his death. Te Puke's son is living on the site of his father's house. Heni te Bei used to come to Waiwiri and return to Otaki. Her kainga at Waiwiri was close to Te Puke's. The houses that Te Puke and Heni te Bei lived in are north of Kemp's line. The houses that we are now living in are south of the line. I did not understand the question at first. The kaingas at Waiwiri before 1874 were north of the line, but when we heard that the land had been awarded to Kemp we shifted to the south of it. The potatoes were not planted at Otawhaowhao as a protest against the judgment of the Court of 1873. I cannot name any of our dead buried north of Kemp's line. I have seen Topeora; she died at Otaki in 1865. I never saw Topeora cultivating on this land. Rangatiras do not work. I have seen Topeora living at Mahoenui; cannot remember what year it was. It was before my beard grew. There were houses at Mahoenui then. I saw Topeora living in one; Te Paea in another. Aperahama te Buau was there also. I went with Topeora. I

G.—2a

6

was grown up when she left for Otaki. I saw Bauparaha there. I was very young at the time. Mahoenui was a permanent kainga. It was abandoned in 1874. There were only cultivations there then. All the eel-pas I have named are on Waiwiri Stream. The people who use them all live on the other side of Kemp's line. We abandoned them after the boundary was surveyed. I only know of one Whakamaungaariki at Waiwiri. It is a sandhill. The eel-pa is named after it. I knew Heta Noa. I have not seen his kainga at Mahoenui. Te Puke and others told me of the reserves; they told us all. Te Aohauma told us that Kemp and McLean had agreed to set apart reserves for the four hapus on the land we are now speaking of. They did not name any piece. They said that four parcels were to be reserved. I did not ask where the reserves were to be located. Te Puke did not say where the reserves were to be located, except that they were to be in this land. I heard that he corresponded with the Government about them. I heard from him that he wanted the whole of the land between the boundaries. Te Puke said that the four reserves were for the four hapus ; he did not mention the names of the reserves or their area. It was after Te Puke returned from Wellington that he told me he wanted all the land between the boundaries. He told me that he would not cease to agitate until he got it. This was in 1878. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Te Bangirurupuni was one of the applicants for Horowhenua in 1873. His name was in the Kahiti. Ido not remember the others. I suppose he claimed for Muaupoko, because I did not see any application for land south of Mahoenui. Cross-examined by Mr. Bansfield. Witness: 1 have heard of Haere Wharara. I do not know that he had any right to No. 11. Horomona Toremi had an eel-pa at Whakamaungaariki, in the Waiwiri Stream. I saw it. I saw Hunia at Waiwiri. She lived with us at Waiwiri for about a year. Her right was from Horomona. Whakamaungaariki was an ancient pa. Ido not know whether Horomona took part in lease to McDonald. Mr. Morison said his side did not oppose Horomona Toremi. He understood that Horomona represented Ngatikahoro. Witness (to Bansfield): Horomona Toremi was a Ngatikahoro. I do not know who really owned Te Karamu; every one worked at it. I did not hear that it belonged to Haere Wharara. I heard that Te Uku belonged to Aperahama. None of Haere Wharara's descendants come to Waiwiri; that is why Ido not know anything about them. Whakamate belonged to Aperahama. I know this because he has left it to his descendants. I last saw Hunia working at Whakamaungaariki in 1877 and 1878. She ceased to work there after survey. I repeat that I did not see Horomona when Matene te Whiwhi, Whatanui, and Te Puke arranged the lease to McDonald. The lease was given long before the land went through the Court. I heard that Horomona joined Te Whatanui in opposing Muaupoko's claims in 1873. The Court announced that a telegram had been received from Mr. Sheridan, saying that he had no information about the matter before the Court. [Telegram read.] Hura was not present at 2 p.m., and Mr. Morison suggested that Bansfield's evidence be taken. The Court had no objection. Mr. Ransfield wished to know if Mr. Morison intended to call him to give evidence on his own case. Mr. Morison said he wished Bansfield to give evidence for himself and for his (Mr. Morison's) case. The cases were practically the same. At this stage Hura appeared. Hura Ngahue re-examined by Mr. Morison. Witness : I have heard of a chief called Tawhakairo, a relation of Te Paea. I heard he was buried on this block. Do not know what part. Muhunoa kainga is not far from Waiwiri kainga. Muhunoa is 40 chains from the lake. The Muhunoa kainga is a long way from Waiwiri kainga, which is near the sea. Waiwiri was a permanent kainga when it was occupied. Topeora, Te Puke, and others occupied Waiwiri in my time. We ceased to occupy it when Te Puke died. He lived sometimes at Waiwiri and sometimes near Papaitonga. The majority of the people left Waiwiri in 1874 and went north—l mean Hikake and others. We went inland to live after the roads were made. Te Puke continued to catch eels in Waiwiri Stream after 1873 up to the time of his death. Waretini and ourselves owned the last houses at Mahoenui. We abandoned that settlement in 1875. The lease to McDonald was arranged at McDonald's residence, near mouth of Hokio. I saw Matene te Whiwhi and Te Puke going there. I was born before Bishop Hadfield came to live at Otaki. There was no pa at Waiwiri. The elders would have told me if there had been. Waiwiri kainga is not far from the sea. To Court: The only pas 1 know of are one on the island in Waiwiri Lake (Te Whakamate-a-tumokai), and another which can be seen from the beach. Te Puke lived at all three. The pa near the beach is on south side of Waiwiri Stream, close to it. Te Puke lived there up to time of his death. Our houses at Mahoenui were not burnt down. It was known in 1874 that the Court had decided the ownership of Horowhenua, but we were still demanding a rehearing. Te Puke may have known then that a rehearing had been refused. The four hapus lived at the places I have named when the land was sold to the Government. The sale did not extend as far north as Bakauhamama. Signs of our ownership still visible at Mahoenui, Otawhaowhao, and other kaingas. Bobebt Bansfield sworn. Witness : I know the land between Mahoenui boundary and Kemp's boundary. Have known it since 1858. At that time it was occupied. I saw people working there. The descendants of Te

7

a.— 2a

Whatanui collected food at Bakauhamama. Haere Wharara and his son Horomona collected food there. Ngatihikitanga lived at Otawhaowhao and collected food there. Ngatiparekowhatu and Ngatipareraukawa got food there also. These people cultivated as far south as Waiwiri Stream. I mean the descendants of Tuainuku. I have heard of Aperahama te Buru; he was a relative of Tuainuku, and worked on this land. Matene te Whiwhi used to come from Otaki to the people on this land. I heard that Topeora used to live there also at times. Horomona had apa at Bakauhamama called " Papatutaki," on the boundary between his hapu and Whatanui's people. Whakamaungaariki eel-pa is on Waiwiri Stream. It belonged to Haere Wharara and Horomona. I never saw any houses at Mahoenui, but I have heard that it was a large place, and belonged to Ngatihikitanga, Ngatipareraukawa, and Ngatiparekohatu. I was living at Waikawa at time of dispute in 1873. I went to Horowhenua. About a hundred and forty of us went armed. Te Puke and his people accompanied us. They came from Mahoenui. They were armed. Bakera was living at Mahoenui at the time. She went with Te Puke's people to Tawa. I might explain that the people who resided on this land went away at times, but always returned to keep their fires alight. I never saw or heard of any Muaupoko working south of Mahoenui boundary. The reason we went armed to Horowhenua was to attack Muaupoko, because we were dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court awarding this land to them, and the Government refusing to allow a rehearing. Sir Donald McLean sent a message to us urging us not to fight, and we stopped. My claim commences from the mouth of Waiwiri Stream, then follows the stream to Whakamaungaariki Pa, and on to Whakamate ; turns northwards, and runs to Whatanui boundary, turning westward to Te Papatutaki, and on to the ocean, and by the ocean to the commencing-point. These are old boundaries. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I claim for my client and another. Their names are Hunia Arona and Te Bei Paehua. These are the persons I appear for. They can supply the list of names; I cannot. I cannot give the genealogy from Kahoro down to Hunia Arona and Te Bei Paehua. The descendants of Te Whatanui are in the agreement as such. I heard that the whole of the £1,050 was paid to the people who signed the agreement. Horomona told me. I heard that Te Puke received £700 out of the £1,050. [Horowhenua Commission, page 236, question 367, read.] I heard from Horomona that the descendants of Whatanui took the money. [Horowhenua Commission, page 236, question 371, read out.] That is true. I said it, and say so now. When Horomona returned from Wellington in 1874 he said that Sir Donald McLean had given back Te Whakamaungaariki and Te Papatutaki to him, and that Ngatihikitanga and the other hapus were to have their pieces. [Horowhenua Commission, page 236, question 370, read.] I spoke to Major Kemp the first day the Commission opened last year about the reserves. Hunia Arona asked him about them in Wanganui in 1886, and he said, "Go and live on your land." I heard from Te Puke and his people, when we went armed to Horowhenua, that they came from Mahoenui. We did not all leave Horowhenua together. Some remained after our division left. I cannot say whether any members of the four hapus remained. The land within the boundaries I have given belongs exclusively to Ngatikahoro. They were the sole occupants. The other three hapus did not occupy it. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Horomona Toremi got a reserve at Maramaihoea. Not because he had occupied it permanently from before 1840 down to 1866, but because he assisted in the purchase by the Crown. His permanent kainga at that time was Otaki. Haere Wharara went to Bangitikei from Waiwiri, and left Horomona here. Most of Ngatikahoro went to Bangitikei. I was not at Palmerston Court in 1886. Ec-examined by Mr. Morison. Witness : I cannot point out on map the boundary of land I claim for Ngatikahoro. It was not formally laid down, but was acknowledged by all. To Assessor : I heard that Horomona lived on Whakamaungaariki ridge when he worked the land I claim for his hapu. After Christianity he went to Ohau. Wiremu te Pea and Tamihana te Hika remained to work the pas. Hunia and Arona also remained till 1877, when the land was abandoned, because of the hostility of Muaupoko. I have seen a kainga of Ngatihikitanga at mouth of Waiwiri Stream, on south side, but within the boundaries of Horowhenua. Ngatihikitanga and the other hapus had lived together, but each hapu had separate mahinga. To Court: I will hand in list of names of Ngatikahoro as soon as Hunia Arona arrives. I do not propose to call any witnesses. Mr. Morison said he admitted the right of Horomona Toremi, but if Bansfield intended to admit others they must go into Horomona's share. Mr. Ransfield admitted that this was fair. Mr. Morison put in vol. ii., pages 50 to 52, and vol. i., page 31, and asked that the closing of his case might be postponed till Monday. It might be necessary to call Erenora Tungia. Mr. Ransfield handed in his list of names. The Court adjourned till the 12th instant.

Levin, Monday, 12th April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. Morison said he would call Erenora Tungia. Her evidence would be short.

G.—2a.

8

Erenora Tungia sworn. Witness: I am a Ngatiparekohatu. I know the land at Mahoenui. I have cultivated at Mahoenui. The first year I cultivated at Mahoenui and on south side of Papaitonga was about 1847. I cultivated there four years, and then I married Pirihana. I heard the land there was Bangihaeata's. Te Maianewa and Peou and many others who I forget worked there at the same time as myself. I remember Aperahama te Buru and Te Hana working there at that time. The people who lived there were Ngatipareraukawa. I heard that there was a boundary laid down between Bangihaeata and Te Whatanui. Te Whatanui fixed the first boundary. I have only heard of one boundary. I cannot give the names along the boundary. We found Arapata and Te Kuini at Mahoenui when we went there. By Te Kuini I mean Topeora. Topeora lived there in her own right. She and her brother, Bangihaeata, had the mana over the land. Te Paea and Te Whakarongo used to go there. Bia Waitohi was one of those who lived at Mahoenui. I left Mahoenui after the death of Te Bauparaha (about 1849). I have only been at Mahoenui as a visitor since. Topeora, Arapata, and the slaves of Bangihaeata, and his wife were there when I visited the place. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Te Bangihaeata brought me to Mahoenui. We went there to work from Poroutawhao in March. This was after the trouble at the Hutt; that took place in 1845. Poroutawhao was Bangihaeata's first kainga after we returned from Pouawa. Ido not know that Topeora lived at Poroutawhao. I have been awarded land at Poroutawhao through permanent occupation. I know the Wairarawa Stream. I was not here at time of Judge Bogan's Court. I was in the Middle Island. I did not hear that Judge Bogan fixed Wairarawa Stream as the Muaupoko boundary. There were no names given to the cultivations at Mahoenui. I caught eels at Mahoenui, in the Papaitonga Lake and the Waiwiri Stream. I do not know the names of the eel-pas in the Waiwiri Stream. I did not catch the eels myself. The men caught them. I went with them. Aperahama te Buru died at Otaki. It was one of his principal kainga. Mahoenui was another. Ido not remember when he died, but it was before the Manawatu-Kukutauaki case came before the Court. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : The Ngatiparekohatu had no burial-place at Mahoenui that I know of. To Court: We went by Horowhenua to Mahoenui; crossed the lake in canoes. I know of Te Hukiki's kainga at Muhunoa. When I went by the beach to Mahoenui I passed Te Hukiki's place. Te Paea's kainga was the nearest to Papaitonga, about a chain from it. Te Hukiki's kainga was further south than Te Paea's. Mr. Ransfield put in whakapapa showing descent of Horomona Toremi from Kahoro; also complete list of names for his case. Mr. Morison did not object to either. Closed his case. Sir W. Buller, for objectors, called Major Kemp. Keepa te Bangihiwinui sworn. Witness : I remember the judgment in favour of Ngatiraukawa in 1872 for Manawatu-Kuku-tauaki. The whole block was awarded to them, except Horowhenua and Tuwhakatupu. Boundaries of these were not defined. In 1873 Horowhenua, 52,000 acres, was awarded to Muaupoko. The boundaries of Horowhenua were not then defined. During the hearing of Horowhenua I asked Court to come and inspect it. Ngatiraukawa and Judges Smith and Bogan came by Poroutawhao. We and our lawyer, Mr. Cash, followed them. When we reached a gate on this side of Manawatu Tauhu came to shut it, but Mr. Cash and I got through it, and came on by the beach. When we got to Paekeatari Lake we saw some people coming towards us. I heard Hapi say that it was a cultivation of theirs. I said, "No, it is an eel-pa of my ancestors." Manihera, Hoani, and Edwin Woon went to Waiwiri to put in the post there. They found Tamati Maunu there. The Judges saw that the Ngatiraukawa had not given the tohus correctly. They did not go to Waiwiri, but decided to go and fix the northern boundary on this side of Wairarawa. After this we returned to Foxton, and after five days' hearing the Court made its award for 52,000 acres, more or less, between the points fixed. If the Court will visit the boundaries I will show it the concessions I made on my own responsibility without reference to the tribe. After the award in 1873 the list of names was made out by Te Bangimairehau, Heta, and Te Whatahoro. I had nothing to do with it. When the disputes arose in 1874, and Kawana was arrested, Sir Donald McLean wired me to go to Wellington. When I arrived there I found that Kawana Hunia had been released on bail. Sir Donald McLean aske<3 me to go to his office. He spoke to me about the money he was going to give Te Puke. I did not object. Ido not know what the amount was. Then he gave me a document to sign about the reserves. I signed it. It was about the kainga and the graves. I mean Waiwiri. The kainga and burial-place I mean are at the mouth of Waiwiri, on the south side of the stream. After signing I returned to the Native hostelry. On a subsequent day Sir Donald McLean sent for me again, and I then signed the agreement about the descendants of Te Whatanui, and returned to Wanganui. After this I was sent for by Government to go to Otaki about Waihoanga. After I had been there some days there was talk about the boundary of Horowhenua being surveyed. The Ngatihuia said, "We hear you are going to survey the northern boundary," and threatened to shoot me if I did. They then left for their homes. The next day I went to the northern boundary, as fixed by Judge Bogan at Wairarawa, and waited for Ngatihuia. As they did not come I brought the boundary south to Waingaio. The Ngatihuia agreed to this boundary, and the survey proceeded. It excluded a large area of land, and was a concession to Ngatihuia. After I returned to Wanganui I heard from Carkeek that there was trouble about the southern boundary. Mr. Booth and I came down to Hokio; met Ben Stickels there. He was working for the surveyor,

9

G.—2a

We saw Te Puke, and I asked him if he was obstructing the survey. He said he was, and I told him I was going to put in my post, and dared him to pull it up. The post I put in was some distance north of the post put in by the Judge's directions, and excluded Te Puke's place. He expressed himself satisfied, and the survey was made. If I had adhered to the first post it would have taken in Muhunoa and all the kaingas. Let the Court go and see both boundaries. I think the Ngatiraukawa ought to be satisfied with these concessions. They were made long after the agreement was signed. The Ngatiraukawa are not entitled to any more reserves. I consented to a piece for tupapaku at Te Paikeatari, but my people have not agreed to it. This was a promise to Ngatihuia. I consider that I have fulfilled my promises to Ngatiraukawa. When I signed the agreement the reserves were not indicated by name. In the agreement with the Whatanuis the only condition was that the reserve was to be near the Horowhenua Lake. I have complied with this condition. Sir Donald McLean did not tell me who he was going to pay the money to, or what it was for. Nor did he mention names of persons the reserves were for. The land I gave up to the Ngatiraukawa is south of the Waiwiri Stream. The Ngatihuia were satisfied with the northern boundary as laid down. Te Puke expressed himself satisfied with the southern boundary as altered. The Ngatiraukawa have never applied to me for any further concessions. There was never any trouble until the time of the Commission. To Mr. McDonald : I remember the Court of 1886 at Palmerston. Notwithstanding the concessions I had made to Ngatiraukawa, I spoke to my people about the reserve I had promised for descendants of Whatanui. I considered at the time that I was not under any obligation to the Ngatiraukawa. Cross-examined by Mr. Morison. Witness : In bringing back the boundary to Waiwiri I consider I was making a large concession to Ngatiraukawa. I think it satisfied the Ngatiraukawa claims for reserves. In my opinion it satisfied their claims for reserves under my agreement with McLean. The boundary as originally intended would have taken in Muhunoa kainga and part of Te Wera-a-whango. When we inspect the land we will see how far south of Muhunoa the original boundary would have gone. Ido not know the southern boundary of Waiwiri Block. I know Te Kainga-a-pipi. I do not know whether my original post was north or south of it. I believe my concession to Ngatiraukawa cut off more than 1,000 acres for them, Be-examined by Sir Walter Buller. Witness: I have really no idea what area I gave up to Ngatiraukawa; it could only be ascertained by survey. To Assessor : If my tribe had fixed the southern boundary of Horowhenua instead of myself the Ngatiraukawa would not have agreed to it. Te Puke agreed to the southern boundary when I brought it back. Mr. Booth was present. It ended the trouble on this land. Ngatiraukawa did not ask me for the reserves. They asked Sir Donald McLean for them. McLean asked me to sign the agreement, and told me he was going to pay them some money. I was not present at their meeting with McLean. It was after I had signed the agreement that I made the concessions to Ngatiraukawa, and there was never any demand made upon me until the time of the Commission ; then the Ngatiraukawa took advantage of my trouble with Wirihana to make further claims upon me. It was in the time of Te Whatanui Tutaki that disputes first arose over this land. There was no trouble before that. In his time the Ngatihuia on the north, and the Ngatiraukawa on the south, endeavoured to confine the Muaupoko to a comparatively small area. I consider the adjustment of the boundary was a final settlement of all disputes. The Ngatihuia did not ask me for any reserves beyond the graveyard. To Court: The agreement I signed in 1874 was not translated to me. It was explained to me. I was told that it related to certain reserves for Ngatiraukawa. [Agreement read.] I meant the reserves for the permanent occupants, Nerehana and Te Puke. I .do not remember the hapus being named in the agreement. I would not have consented if I had known it. The Court fixed the limits of the land on the coast. The Judges themselves fixed the northern boundary. Mr. Edwin Woon, Hoani Puihi, and Te Bau were sent to put up the post at Waiwiri. Mr. Morison read from page 190, vol. i., to show that boundaries of Horowhenua were decided before the case came on. Benjamin Stickels sworn. Witness : lam a farmer. Live at Horowhenua. Know the Horowhenua Block. I remember the Court of 1873. In 1872 I was upon the ranges putting up trig, stations. I was with Mitchell's survey. Came down from the hills when Court sat in 1873. After the Court fixed boundaries we surveyed the northern boundary from the beach. There was a mark on a telegraph-post further north than where we started the boundary. Kemp brought the boundary back to where we started. The Ngatihuia were present. The boundary was brought back three telegraph-poles. A little afterwards we went to Waiwiri with the same surveyor. Hoani Puihi and one or two others went with us. Kemp did not go. We put the post in about 2 chains south of the Waiwiri Stream. It was a carved post, with Muaupoko on one side and Ngatiraukawa on the other. The Ngatiraukawa destroyed it shortly after. About a year after we returned. The mouth of the stream was further north then. We put in a peg at the mouth. Te Puke and his people stopped the survey. There was a small fishing village on south side of stream. Most of the houses would be inside the present boundary ; probably some are outside. I know the Mahoenui clearing. I live close to it. Have been living there eleven years. Have had stock on it since 1868. I have seen Ngatiraukawa come backwards and forwards there. Have not lived there permanently. They used to bring pigs there. I have not seen them there since 1873.

2—G. 2a.

10

a.—2a.

Cross-examined by Mr. Morison. Witness : Waretini and Bopiha I saw there most frequently. To Mr. McDonald : I was at Court of 1886. Did not hear anything about these reserves there. To Court: We put the peg in at the mouth of the Waiwiri Stream on both occasions. We were not allowed to make the survey on the second occasion. Sir W. Buller : That closes my case. Mr. J. M. Fraser said he would not call any evidence. Mr. McDonald called Hoani Puihi. Hoani Puihi sworn. Witness : I am one of the principal occupants of Horowhenua. I am well acquainted with some of the affairs of Muaupoko. It was only when the Commission sat that I heard of there being reserves in this block. I had not heard of it before. I object altogether to the claim of Ngatiraukawa for reserves in No. 11. The whole tribe disapprove of it. I hear now that Kemp entered into an agreement to give Ngatiraukawa some reserves. I object to it altogether. We have given the Whatanuis No. 9, and that is sufficient. The tribe will never agree to give the Ngatiraukawa any more of their land. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Mr. J. M. Fraser : No questions. Mr. Morison : No questions. To Assessor : Nothing of importance. Mr. McDonald ; No more witnesses. Sir W. Buller addressed the Court. Mr. J. M. Fraser addressed the Court. Mr. Morison addressed the Court. Mr. McDonald addressed the Court. The Court reserved its decision, and informed parties that Judge Butler and the Assessor would inspect the portions of Block 11 claimed by the Ngatiraukawa to-morrow. The Court adjourned till the 13th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 13th April, 1897. The Court opened at 9.30 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. Judge Butler and the Assessor were engaged the whole day inspecting the land. The Court adjourned till the 14th instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 14th April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge (presiding); W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor ; A. H. Mackay, Clerk ; H. McDonald, Interpreter. The Court notified that, in consequence of the proximity of the Easter holidays precluding any further business being taken, further proceedings would be adjourned till the 22nd instant, when it was intended to hear and determine the relative rights of the parties interested in Nos. 11 and 12, notice of such intention having been circulated. The Court adjourned till the 22nd instant.

Levin, Thursday, 22nd April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. The Court announced that the business before it was the determination of the relative rights of the 143 registered owners and the forty-eight additional persons whose status had been established by "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," to subdivisions Nos. 11 and 12, but as counsel and conductors engaged in the case had not arrived it would be necessary to adjourn till to-morrow. Mr. McDonald said it was probable that many of the persons interested had been detained by the bad weather. The Court adjourned till the 23rd instant.

Levin, Feiday, 23bd Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Hoeowhenua Nos. 11 and 12. Mr. Stevens informed the Court that, with his clients' consent, he had handed over their case to Mr. McDonald, who would act for them and Himiona Kowhai— i.e., for the Ngatipariri. Sir W. Buller said Mr. J. M. Fraser had wired that he could not be here till to-night. All the Ngatipariri except Himiona Kowhai had signed Mr. Fraser's retainer. Mr. Knocks stated that he appeared for seven or eight persons, and asked that all conductors should be required to submit the names of their clients. Sir W. Buller appeared on behalf of Meiha Keepa and family only, and stated that Mr. Fraser's retainer was before the Court, and was signed by the bulk of Muaupoko.

11

G.—2a

The Court said it understood that Mr. McDonald appeared for the persons formerly represented by Messrs. Stevens and Stafford. Mr. McDonald said it was so, but he had only been instructed this morning. Colonel McDonnell intimated that he appeared for the persons whose names he handed into Court when it first opened. Mr. Stevens said the position was that he withdrew from the case, and Mr. McDonald was to act for his clients. Mr. McDonald said at present he represented Wirihana and Warena Hunia, Iritana Hanita, and Himiona Kowhai. The Court stated that a schedule of the owners had been made out. All must be represented before the case proceeded. Mr. Knocks handed in his retainer. Henare te Apatari said it had been arranged that he should withdraw from the case, and that Hamuera Karaitiana should act for his clients. The Court read out the list of names of the registered owners of the Horowhenua Block, and the forty-eight persons whose status had been established by " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," and ascertained that all were either present or represented excepting (61) Karena Taiawhio, (62) Buahoata, (63) Hakehake te Wunu, (81) Aperahama Bangiwetea, (82) Te Miha-o-te-Bangi, (83) Te Whatahoro, (85) Hoani Meihana, (90) Mihi te Bina Kawana, (48) Bangipo Hoani, (104) Turuki, (112) Bawinia Matao, (114) Ema te Whango, (115) Boreta Tawai, (116) Mata te Whango, (120) Mere Karena-te-mana-o-tawhaka, (125) Bora Tohu, (126) Mere Hira Waipapa, (127) Bia te Baekokiritia, (131) Harerota, (133) Herariki Kawana Hunia, (137) Ngahuia Tirai, (139) Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, (140) Wi Waaka, (141) Ani Marakaia, (142) Miriama Piripi, (143) Harata te Koete, (31) Bawea Taraua. Hamuera Karaitiana stated, with regard to Marakaia Tawaroa, Karaitiana Korou, and other members of Hamua Hapu, that these people did not claim any additional area in excess of what had already been allotted to them, as they were of opinion that the land belonged to Muaupoko Tuturu. Emeri Ngawhakawa informed the Court that she and her son Taitoko kite Uruotu did not intend to prefer any claim to Sections 11 and 12. (This statement was afterwards personally confirmed by Taitoko te Uruotu, who stated that he was satisfied with his share in Subdivision 6, and stated he did not intend to prefer any claim to lands outside of that.) Henare te Apatari stated that he had been instructed to appear for the successors to Peeti te Aweawe, Anikanara, Tihoi's successors, and Meretine Whakaewa. The Court announced that a telegram had been received from Tamati Tautuhi, saying that he had been instructed to appear for Bakera Hunia. (A letter was subsequently received from Tamati Tautuhi, stating that he did not consider it necessary to appear at present, as the interest of her late father, Kawana Hunia, was sufficiently represented by the conductor employed by Wirihana Hunia. If, when successors to Kawana Hunia were appointed, her brothers denied his client's rights to succeed with them equally to their father's interest, he would ask the Court to give him an opportunity of appearing on her behalf.) Inquiry re accounts resumed. Sir W. Buller did not intend to call any more evidence. Mr. Stevens had admitted that the amounts received by Kemp were correctly stated in the statement of accounts put in by him (Sir W. Buller). Objectors' Case. Mr. McDonald said there were several sums mentioned in the statement as having been paid direct to Muaupoko. He had nothing to say about these, as Muaupoko had not made any objection. They had been paid to Muaupoko, and not to Kemp. As to the item £300, given towards cost of meeting-house at Wanganui, he thought there should be some evidence as to the assent of the tribe to the gift being made. The item of £50 paid to McDonald for sheep for Aue Puihi was not a proper charge against the tribe. The sum of £125 paid for sheep for Baniera te Whata was in the same position. The amount of £50 paid to Kiritotara was on the same footing. The amounts paid to Warena Hunia and Wirihana Hunia were not a proper charge. The £1,000 sent to Makere was properly distributed. The sums of £100 each to Bangimairehau and Hapeta Taueki are subject to the same objection as the gift of £300 and others. The £800, he understood, was standing to credit of Sir Walter Buller as a trust account. He contended that this sum should be paid into Court, and remain in the hands of the Court until it was distributed. The Court said it was satisfied the money was perfectly safe where it was. It would consider what should be done. Mr. McDonald questioned the item of £250 for expenses of Muaupoko at Court of 1873 at Foxton; also the sum of £20 paid to Benata Kawepo. With regard to the item of £300 for expenses of Muaupoko attending Court of 1890, he did not think it should all be charged to Muaupoko, but he would let it go. He objected to the £200 for expenses of seven persons in Wellington. The £30 and £150 for food and attending rehearing Court he questioned. The next items—of £300, £150, £100, £100, and £25—he objected to. The item of £200 for Kemp's personal expenses from 1873 to 1886 he objected to. He objected to £100 Kemp's expenses on journeys to Wellington. The £200 for Kemp's personal expenses he could not admit. The £30 paid to Dr. Buller, £5 to McDonald, and £130 paid to Bu Beweti for clerical assistance he objected to. As to the items of £115 and £400 paid to Cash, he would call evidence to show that Kawana Hunia paid £400 of it. He objected to the payments to Mr. Baker, and all the following items except the £100 deposited by Warena Hunia. He called Wirihana Hunia. Sir W. Buller asked upon what principle Mr. McDonald objected to the law charges. Mr. McDonald said the expenses were unnecessary.

G.—2a

12

The Court said it was of opinion that the majority of the owners were benefited by the expenditure. They would have to bear, at any rate, a part of the law-costs. Mr. McDonald intimated that, if the majority of Muaupoko were willing to accept the responsibility of the expenditure, he would beg his clients to do the same. Sir W. Buller said Mr. Fraser had sworn that the statement of accounts had been made out with the consent and approval of his clients, whose names were before the Court. Mr. McDonald said he would prefer the evidence of some of the prominent members of Muaupoko. Sir W. Buller said he was quite willing that this should be done. The Court suggested that Mr. McDonald should call witnesses from the other side. Mr. McDonald said he would call Hoani Puihi. Hoani Puihi sworn. Witness : lam one of the chiefs of Muaupoko. I reside at Horowhenua; have done so for many years. I know that Sir Walter Buller claims a sum of £2,098 Bs. 7d. I have not had a copy in Maori of the statement of accounts furnished by Sir Walter Buller. I remember giving evidence in 1891 about the Horowhenua rents. I was on Wirihana's side then; I am now with the tribe. I saw the statement of accounts when Fraser was drawing it up. Fraser explained to me that Kemp had taken £2,098 of the old rents to pay Sir Walter Buller. If the amount was properly owing to Sir Walter Buller I would not object to it. Kemp was justified in spending the amount in connection with his dispute with Warena Hunia. I approve of the expenditure of £125 in purchasing sheep for Baniera te Whata. I did not derive any benefit from the sheep. I have not heard whether the tribe approved or disapproved. I consider I should have some of the money, because I did not get any of the sheep. Baniera distributed some of the sheep to others. My daughter got a hundred sheep. She and her husband kept them. I did not receive any benefit from them. I think a part of the £50 should be refunded to those who did not benefit by the sheep. I heard that Kemp paid. £50 to Kiritotara and others to support their claims to Buatangata. I think that part of it should be returned to us. I heard that Kemp paid Wirihana Hunia £100; if it was part of the rent it would be right. As to the second payment of £100, the tribe should have been considered. I heard of the third £100 paid to Wirihana Hunia. If it came out of the rents or royalties from Horowhenua the tribe should get some part of it. When the statement of accounts was made out he did not consider the question as to Muaupoko taking them upon their shoulders. The £1,000 was fairly distributed by Makere. It is only lately I have heard that Kemp paid £100 to Bangimairehau. If it came out of rents of Horowhenua he was not entitled to the whole of it. Hapeta Taueki was not entitled to the whole of the £100 paid to him. I know that the £300 was given towards the cost of meeting-house. All the people agreed to it. Mr. McDonald said he would withdraw his objection to this item. He had no further questions. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness: I do not know that any of the sheep given to Te Aue were consumed at our meetings. Her husband sold them in Wellington. Part of the £170 paid by Kemp to Warena Hunia should be returned to the tribe. Any moneys paid to individuals should be accounted for to the tribe. I know there is a sum of £800 still to be distributed among the members of the tribe. I think that in making a distribution of that sum the Court should take into consideration amounts that have been paid to individuals. I do not expect Wirihana Hunia or others to refund the amounts they have received, but they, should be considered when the £800 is divided. The same principle should be applied to the sheep received by Baniera te Whata and Te Aue, and also to the £100 received by Te Bangimairehau, if he cannot satisfy the Court that he expended it on behalf of the people. I ask the Court to take into account the £33 paid by Kemp for horses for Wirihana. I heard in 1873 that Kemp had paid £515 to Cash for costs on behalf of the tribe. I heard that Kemp paid Mr. McDonald £75. I heard that Kemp paid Edwards £940, and £52 10s. to Skerrett. I entirely approve of those payments. They were made on behalf of the tribe. I approve of the payments made by Kemp to Mr. Baker, Messrs. Bell, Gully, and Izard, Mr. Cuff, Court fees, &c.; they were made in the interests of the tribe. I also approve of the payment of £631 to Mr. John Fraser; it was on behalf of the land. I approve of the payment by Kemp of £250 for expenses of Muaupoko in 1873, and the payment of £20 to Benata Kawepo; they were made on behalf of the tribe. I approve of the expenditure of £200 for expenses of members of tribe in Wellington; they were there in the interests of the people. I approve of the expenditure by Kemp of £30 in getting rehearing, and of the £150 spent in food for the people, although Ngatipariri did not participate in those moneys. I approve of the expenditure of £300 in 1891, £150 in 1892, £100 in 1894, £100 in 1895. Kemp was working for the tribe. Ido not object to the £25, Kemp's personal expenses in attending the Commission last year. I approve of the expenditure of £500 for Kemp's personal expenses from 1886 to 1896. I did not some time ago, because I thought Kemp was to blame for oUr not getting our sections in the township. lam satisfied now that Mr. Ballance deprived us of them. Kemp was justified in taking out of the rents £30 he paid you for defending Paki. I approve of the payment of £130 to Bu Bewiti for clerical assistance. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : If the £800 is not sufficient to satisfy the parties who have not participated in the rents, I do not know what can be done. Sir W. Buller asked the Court to go on with the question of accounts to-morrow. Mr. McDonald said he was ready to go on if necessary, but would prefer to adjourn till Monday, as arranged this morning.

13

GK—2a

The Court decided to go on with accounts to-morrow, and would grant an adjournment on Monday, if necessary. The Court adjourned till the 24th instant.

Levin, Satueday, 24th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re account's resumed. Hoani Puihi cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : After the year 1886 Kemp and Wirihana became unfriendly. I sided with Wirihana. We paid our own expenses. I approve of the payment of £400 to Baker after 1886. Each side should pay their share. To Sir W. Buller: I approve and consent to all the payments to lawyers and agents, because Kemp was not acting for himself, but for the people. To Mr. McDonald : In 1890 Kemp and his people paid their lawyers and we paid ours. I did not understand at that time that Wirihana's party were to pay Kemp's lawyer. I meant by what I said yesterday that the tribe had agreed that the moneys expended by Kemp were spent in the interests of the tribe. I think the money we paid to our lawyer in 1890 should be brought into account and paid out of the money derived from the land. I heard in Wellington that we were to be turned off this land when Parliament was sitting. I heard it from the conductors of Wirihana Hunia and Himiona Kowhai. They said that No. 11 was for the two persons only, and not for the tribe. I was not told in so many words that the people were to be turned off the land, but Donald Fraser and Himiona Kowhai told me that we were at the mercy of the registered owners. We agreed to Kemp and Warena holding No. 11 as trustees. It was not till long after the laud was awarded to them that we heard it was theirs only. I did not ask Warena what he meant by saying that the land was his absolutely. Stevens and Donald Fraser asked me to say before a parliamentary committee that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena only. I refused, and came away from Wellington after telling them that I could not cut my own throat. To Assessor : I was on Wirihana's side at time of Commission last year. I joined Kemp at the beginning of this year. Kemp became the kaiwhakahaere for the people in 1873, and continued in that position until 1886, when Warena became co-trustee with him in No. 11. My reason for separating from Kemp in 1886 was that my land and homestead were included in the block sold for a township. Kemp promised to exclude my homestead, but failed to do so. I approve of all the payments made to lawyers and conductors on behalf of the people. Warena and Wirihana told me that their expenses were to come out of the State farm. I did not contribute anything towards them. I admit that the statement of accounts rendered by Kemp is correct. I approve of it. To Court; I leave it to the law to decide whether Kemp or the people who received the moneys should refund them to the tribe. Wieihana Hunia sworn. Witness: lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have for many years taken part in the transactions relating to it. lam the eldest son of Kawana Hunia. I know that my father expended money in connection with this block before 1873. I remember a sum of £800 was spent by him before and including 1873. It was spent in connection with different meetings about Horowhenua. He expended other moneys after this in 1873, paying lawyers, &c. Part of the £800 was spent in connection with a meeting at time of building Kupe, also in paying for timber and other material for the building. Stevens rendered an account for me to the Boyal Commission. Mr. McDonald said he would put in the account. Witness (to Mr. McDonald): I have heard of the account rendered by Kemp. It is not true that Kemp paid £400 to Cash in 1874. My father paid every penny of it. My father and Kemp gave £200 to Mr. Cash at Foxton. It was Hunia's money. It belonged to him and his tribe, the Ngatiapa. A Ngatikahungunu woman contributed £10 towards it. After this payment Kemp wrote to Hunia to say that the lawyer had asked for the balance of this money—£2oo. My father went to Wanganui to take the £200 to Kemp, so that he might hand it over to the lawyer. He told me he had given the money to Kemp in the presence of Mr. Bichard Woon. After the second payment I heard that Kemp and Booth had sent Cash's account to be taxed. Te Whatahoro and Cash both told me this. Cash complained about his bill of costs being taxed. Cash told me afterwards that his bill had been taxed down to £160. I have a distinct recollection of my father telling me that he paid Cash £400. I deny that this sum came out of the rents of Horowhenua. I do not know of a sum of £115 having been paid to Cash in 1872. If such a payment had been made I would have heard of it Ido not think Cash was acting for Hunia and Kemp in 1872. I can say positively that it was not paid. I never heard of it. I object to its being made a charge against the rents of Horowhenua, because I never heard of it. I remember some Muaupoko going to Parewanui with money about 1874. They took £200 to Hunia. It was part of the rent of Horowhenua. This was not the money taken to Kemp. It was a present to Ngatiapa for assisting Muaupoko in connection with Horowhenua before 1873. Hunia distributed the money among the chiefs of Ngatiapa. Ihaka te Bangihouhia, Ihaia Taueki, Noa te Whata, and others took the money to Parewanui. The hapus who contributed the money were Ngatihine, £50; Ngatipariri, £50; Ngatitamarangi, £50; Ngaiteao, £50. I do not deny that Muaupoko received £400 for rent in 1876, but I do not know anything about it. I do not know of any payments by McDonald to Muaupoko. I did not participate in any of them, and object to them on that ground. I heard of a present by Muaupoko of £200 to Kemp. I did not consent to it, but I did not make

G.—2a

14

any objection to it. I did not hear of any gift of £100 to Kemp. It is too late to object now. I do not object. It was a gift by Muaupoko to Kemp. I have not heard of an order being given by Kemp to McDonald to pay Ihaia Taueki and others a sum of £300 in 1886. This is the first I have heard of it. I object because I did not receive any of the money. Kemp should be made to account for it. I object to the item £50 paid for sheep for Te Aue Puihi. Kemp should account for this to the tribe. I object to the £125 paid for sheep for Baniera being charged against the moneys derived from the land. I deny that Warena got £70 from Kemp in 1882, or at any other time. Kemp sent Warena £40 by wire in 1887. Kemp did not say where he got the money from. It was his own. I cannot agree to its being made a charge against Horowhenua. Warena and I supposed that it came out of moneys derived from No. 3. I admit that Kemp gave Warena £100 in Wellington. Do not remember date. I think it was part of the proceeds of the sale of the township. I received the £100 from Kemp in Wellington. Later on he gave me £100 in Palmerston. I deny that I received another £100 from Kemp in Wellington. I received two sums of £100 each from Kemp in Wanganui. Kemp paid £33 for some horses of mine that were impounded in Palmerston. I believe I have received £400 odd altogether from Kemp. I admit that the majority of Muaupoko received the £1,000 sent by Kemp to Makere. Kemp and I had begun to quarrel then. I have only now heard of the payment of £100 to Bangimairehau. I object to this, as I have done to all other payments to individuals. I make the same objection to the £100 paid to Hapeta Taueki. The £800 will be distributed to the persons found entitled. The Court adjourned till the 26th instant.

Levin, Monday, 26th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Objectors' case continued. Mr. McDonald wished to know how the fees were to be charged in this case. The Court informed him that each party would have to pay their own. Wieihana Hunia's examination in chief continued. Witness : I think the £75 paid by Kemp to you in 1886 is a private matter between you. I know nothing of it. Ido not consider that it should be made a charge against the people. I do not know anything about the £400 paid by H. McDonald to Mr. Baker on Kemp's order. Ido not consider it should be made a charge against moneys derived from Horowhenua. I know nothing of the £400 paid to Mr. Baker by J. B. McDonald in 1888. It should not be made a charge against Horowhenua moneys. The £300 paid to Baker in 1889 is a matter between Baker and Kemp. I object to it. I also object to the £300 paid to Baker by Bell, Gully, and Izard on Kemp's order. I make the same objection to the sums of £105 ss. and £10 10s. paid by Kemp to Bell, Gully, and Izard in 1890. The sum of £631 paid by Kemp to J. M. Fraser is a matter between them. It should not be charged to the people. The item £33 12s. paid to Cuff I object to. I object also to the £28 lis. paid for Court fees. Warena paid for the Court fees on his side. I object to the £43 paid to Bota Tahiwi. I object also to the payment of £840 to Mr. Edwards, solicitor. I object to the £52 10s. paid to Mr. Skerrett. I object to the item £2,098 Bs. 7d. being charged against moneys accruing from Horowhenua. Warena and I paid all our own expenses. The expenditure of these moneys became necessary, owing to the misconduct by Kemp of the affairs of this land. Kemp has been the cause of all the trouble. The first wrong done by Kemp was the misappropriation of the rents received under the lease executed in 1874. My father and I and some of the Muaupoko went to Wellington several times to endeavour to get Horowhenua subdivided and Kemp removed from his trusteeship, but we did not succeed. I was not satisfied with Kemp's appropriation of the rents of No. 11 after 1886, and Warena applied in consequence for partition of No. 11. He also took action in the Supreme Court to compel Kemp to account for the rents received by him for No. 11. That was the beginning of the trouble between Kemp and myself. It has gone on ever since. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Native Land Court in 1890. Kemp and I tried to come to some arrangement, but nothing came of it. His advisers prevented it. I think this was before we went into the Court of 1890. We proposed to cut off a piece of land for Warena, another for Kemp, and give the balance to the people. Hoani Taipua and Karena-te-mana-o-tawhaki endeavoured to bring about the arrangement. Kemp agreed. Under the proposal Warena was to have 3,500 acres. Kemp was to have the same area, and the tribe the balance. I think this proposal came from Warena's side. The location of Warena's area was not mentioned, nor was Kemp's at that time. Kemp and Warena both agreed to the arrangement. I think Mr. J. M. Fraser prevented it being carried out. Warena's solicitor tried his best to have the matter arranged. The negotiations were conducted through Kemp and myself. As no settlement was arrived at in Palmerston, we came to Pipiriki, where the negotiations fell through altogether. The first I heard of it being necessary for us to go into Court was that Fraser had prevented a settlement. Kemp told me this. We then went into Court. When the case came on I wished to state my claims to the land. I did not want to turn everybody off it. I intended to protect the rights of my hapu. I objected to their being left in Kemp's hands, as we were discontented with Kemp's administration. I was present in the rehearing Court of 1891. I made the same claim in that Court as I had in the previous one. The Pipiriki meeting took place after this Court. It was at that meeting the location of Warena's area was mentioned. One of the proposals was that it was to be at Te Kawiu. Ihaia Taueki made this proposal. Kemp's 3,500 acres was to be at Waiwiri. Ihaia said that Meiha Keepa should go on to the Ngatipariri side. Bangimairehau proposed that Warena's

15

G.—2a

land should be on the south side of the block, between Waiwiri and the sea. I opposed this. Bangimairehau also proposed that Kemp and the tribe should all be put together in the balance of the land. I would not agree to this, because my hapu would still be in Kemp's power, and suffer in consequence. I said that the tribe should be separated from both Kemp and Warena, so that Kemp could not do them any more harm. Kemp said that the Horowhenua Lake should be.made a reserve, and be put in his name alone. I objected to this, and said that I would not discuss the proposals any further, as half the lake belonged to Warena and his hapu—our hapu. There was no proposal made that we should have an equivalent for the lake. The meeting broke up without result. There have been no further negotiations between Kemp and me since. The reasons I have given to the Court are the grounds upon which I object to the law-costs being made a charge against Horowhenua. Hamuera Karaitiana ; No questions. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I did not hear that Te Peeti te Aweawe contributed anything towards Cash's bill of costs. Te Raraku Hunia said she appeared for herself and brothers, as she had disagreed with her conductor. The Court recommended her to find another conductor, but she insisted on cross-examining the witness. Cross-examined by Baraku Hunia. Witness: Kawana Hunia spent £800 on Kupe, and in connection with meetings and the Horowhenua Block, before 1872. Kupe was a Maori building. It was not a wooden building. The people who built it were not paid. The money was paid for food. The Muaupoko provided some of the food. Kawana sent 4 tons of flour and 1 ton of sugar. The appropriation of the rents of No. 11 by Kemp was the original cause of our quarrel. I wanted a portion of the rents for myself. If I chose to divide it with others that would be my business, but it was mine absolutely. I do not think I was as much to blame as Kemp in asking him for a share of the rent of No. 11. The land had been awarded to Kemp and Warena. The £400 paid by Hunia to Cash was not given by Ngatiapa to Ihaia Taueki out of regard for Muaupoko. Some of the Ngatiapa may have contributed part of the amount. Ihaia Taueki, Noa, Ihaka te Bangihouhia, and others refunded part of the amount to Ngatiapa in 1874 —£200, I think. Ido not know why Bangimairehau proposed that Warena's share of No. 11 should be on south side of block, between the railway and the sea. It is not true that Warena wanted to give the sandy part of the land to Ngatipariri, and retain the best of the land and the kaingas for himself. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I think the £400 paid by Hunia to Cash was in addition to the £800. I think, from what I heard from him, he expected £1,200 in all. My father sent other food to the Kupe meeting besides the 4 tons of flour he sent from Foxton. I remember three cart-loads. Ido not know of any more. I cannot give particulars of the expenditure of the balance of the £800, but I know that Hunia went to Wellington several times. I did not hear that any part of the £400 was repaid to Hunia, but he got the land, Horowhenua. I did not see my father give Kemp the £400 to pay the lawyer, but the people knew he had done so. I heard from my father that he had paid two sums of £200 each to Kemp. The first payment of £200 was made in Foxton. It came out of Kawana's share of the Aorangi money. I think Kawana got the second £200 from James Bull. lam quite sure my father told me that he paid the whole of the £400 to Kemp, who handed it to the lawyer. No part of the £400 was ever repaid to Hunia. Ido not remember saying in the Native Land Court that £200 of it was repaid to Hunia. [Vol. xiv., pages 327 and 328, witness' evidence : " Who paid the expenses of the lawyer, &c, at Foxton ?" &c] I remember now that I gave that evidence. There is no difference between that statement and. the one I have made to-day. The £200 was given to Hunia as chief of Ngatiapa. He distributed it among the chiefs of Ngatiapa. I did not tell this to the Court of 1890. [Vol. xiv., page 329, witness' evidence : " Why did you conceal," &c, read.] The elders told me that the £200 was brought to Ngatiapa as the first-fruits of the land. Ido not know why I did not say this to the Court of 1890. Ido not know why the first-fruits of the land should be taken to my father. He was the rangatira of Horowhenua in his day. lam the rangatira now. lam far above Kemp in rank, and I will prove it before these cases are over. I consider lam the rangatira of No. 11. It is mine. lam the chief of Muaupoko. lam the absolute chief of the whole of the Horowhenua blocks. I proposed that Warena's name should be put in No. 11 with Kemp's. I intended that he should be absolute owner, not a trustee. He was not a takekore. When Kemp petitioned Parliament I protested that Warena was absolute owner of No. 11. I say so still. I still say that Warena was not a trustee. lam aware that the Supreme Court has decided that Warena was a trustee, and that the land belonged to the people. The Appeal Court confirmed that decision. Notwithstanding this, I say he was the absolute owner of the land —to do as he chose with it. He could put others in or keep them out. Kemp was not justified in going to the Supreme Court to prove that Warena was a trustee. He did not do it on behalf of the people, or why did he oppose the claims of Ngatipariri, the permanent occupants of the land ? He has opposed the Ngatipariri in all the Courts. He objected to their ancestor, Pariri. Ido not remember whether he opposed the Ngatipariri who had resided permanently on the land. Warena sold 1,500 acres of No. 11 to the Crown. Warena received the money for it, and spent it in defraying expenses and costs. There was nothing left for Ngatipariri. I think he was justified in expending the money as he did. It was on behalf of the Ngatipariri hapu. The dispute between Kemp and. Warena was that Kemp contended that he was a trustee for the people, and Warena that the

G.—2a

16

land belonged to him, but Warena meant that it belonged to him and his people. It was because Warena contended that the law had given the land to him that Kemp went to law to ascertain what the law was, but Warena set apart a portion of the land for his hapu. Kemp did not follow his example. Ido not admit that Kemp was justified in going to the Supreme Court because the law had given the land to Warena, and Kemp contended that I and my brother had no right to the land. Kemp should have provided for his people out of his share of the land, instead of going to the Supreme Court and Parliament. The Supreme Court has held that Kemp and Warena were trustees in No. 11, and put the people back on the land, but Parliament has cancelled the decree of the Supreme Court. It is the function of this Court to decide whether Kemp and Warena were trustees. I say that Warena is not a trustee. He is the chief of the land and the people. In my opinion Kemp should be declared to be a trustee, because he has had so much of the land. The land is his, inasmuch as he is a chief. If he is a chief the people are his also. The real reason for Kemp going to the Supreme Court was because we beat him in the Court of 1890. It is because Kemp went to the Supreme Court and Parliament instead of arranging privately with Warena that I object to the amounts he has charged for legal costs and expenses. I object on behalf of Ngatipariri, whether they consent or not. They are wrong in consenting. The Ngatipariri were with Warena in previous cases, and Warena paid all the expenses. It is only lately they have gone to Kemp. I object on behalf of Himiona Kowhai, Warena, and Bihipeti. lam not authorised to speak for Bihipeti. I object also on behalf of Kingi Puihi. He has asked me to allow him to join my case. Pane Korana has authorised me to speak for her. I object on behalf of all those for whom Mr. McDonald appears for, as well as those Mr. Fraser represents. They were with me when the expenditure took place, although they have left me now. Ido not know why Ngatipariri have left me. I admit all the items charged to me in the account rendered by Kemp except the second £100 in Wellington. Kemp gave me £100 in Wellington at time of sale of township in 1887. Ido not remember his giving me another £100 at the Wellington Hotel in Wellington. Kemp gave me the money without my asking him. Ido not remember his giving me money just as we were leaving Wellington. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : A rangatira is the chief of the land and the people. A trustee is, in my opinion, a guardian of the land and the tribe. Although the land was awarded to Kemp and Warena absolutely, they were still, as chiefs, under an obligation to provide for their people. The position of Kemp and Warena in No. 11 was the same as mine in No. 3. I had not to account to any one for anything I received from my 105 acres in No. 3. Kemp and Warena were not accountable to any one in No. 11. The land was theirs, but as it was a large area they could consider the people if they chose. To Court: I contend that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena absolutely, but they could consider the people if they chose. That is what I meant by my replies to Mr. McDonald. I do not know why the Ngatipariri have left me. It may be because I have always claimed that No. 11 belongs to Warena and myself. [Horowhenua Commission, page 57, question 321 and reply, read.] I reaffirm that reply. The same terms would not apply to me if I kept to myself the benefits derivable from my 105 acres. Bihipeti Tamaki sworn. Witness : lam one of the 106 owners in Horowhenua No. 3. I have never had any of the rent or royalties from Horowhenua. I consider myself entitled to participate in them. Ido not think that my share of the rents of Horowhenua should be charged with any part of the costs incurred by Kemp, because we did not agree to his incurring the liability. The £100 paid to Bangimairehau should be charged to him personally. The same principle should be applied to all amounts paid to individuals. Ido not live at Horowhenua. I reside at Hamua with my husband. Ido not claim any of the moneys paid to Muaupoko direct before 1873. I claim a share of all rents paid direct to Muaupoko or to Kemp since the Court of 1873. Hamuera Karaitiana : No questions. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I have never asked Kemp or any one else for money derived from Horowhenua. The Court adjourned till the 27th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 27th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Objectors' case continued. Mr. McDonald said he did not propose to call any more witnesses excepting on one point—viz., the moneys paid to Muaupoko at Horowhenua. He understood that Waata Muruahi could give some information on the matter. The Court reminded parties again that under section 4 of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," it had the power to limit the interest of or wholly omit from any order made under the provisions of the Act the name of any person who, having been found to be a trustee, has, to the prejudice of the owners, assumed the position of an absolute owner in respect to any former sale or disposition of any portion or portions of the block. Kemp had been the sole administrator of the estate, and charges of misappropriations of the moneys derived from the land had been repeatedly made against him, in Parliament and out of Parliament. It was necessary, therefore, to inquire fully into the matter, and settle it once and for all.

17

Gk— 2a

Waata Mubuahi sworn. Witness : Am a member of Muaupoko Tribe. Beside here. Am one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I was in Horowhenua in 1876. I remember the Muaupoko receiving rents in that year. I kept an account at the time, but Kemp took the document. I gave it to him after the Palmerston Court of 1891, I think. I did not attend the Court of 1886. The Court of that year was nearly over when I returned from Parihaka. I sent the account to Kemp by his sister Bora. I saw £400 paid to Muaupoko at Waitahi in 1876. Sir Walter Buller and Kemp paid it. £200 of it was divided among the people. The balance was sent to Ngatiapa in return for money provided by them to meet expenses of Court of 1873. The £200 kept by Muaupoko was divided among Ngatihine, Ngaitamarangi, Ngaiteao, and Ngatipariri hapus—£so to each hapu. I shared in the Ngaitamarangi portion. Te Kiri took the money for our hapu. Makere and Noa te Whata received the £50 for Ngatihiri. The Ngaiteao share was paid to Himiona Taiweherua and Kerehi Tomo. Hariata Tinotahi, Mereana te Maunu, and Iritana and Ngataahi took the money for Ngatipariri. I saw H. McDonald pay £100 in 1877. It was paid to Ihaia Taueki, who divided among the members of the tribe, or, rather, he handed it to the tribe, and the tribe divided it equally among the same four hapus. McDonald also paid £364 in 1880. The amount due was £400, but £36 was deducted for expenses of defending Paki te Hunga. The £364 was divided equally among the four hapus. In 1881—25 th April—H. McDonald paid £100 to Muaupoko. Ihaia Taueki received it. It was presented to Kemp with food when he built his new house. On the 20th June, 1881, a further sum of £200 was sent to Kemp. All the hapus agreed to it. Ihaia Taueki took it to him at Banana. In 1882 McDonald paid Muaupoko £300. Ihaia took it. The amount was divided equally among the four hapus. I remember the sum of £50 being paid for sheep for Te Aue Puihi. We wished to claim some of them, but our elders restrained us.. I do not know whether the four hapus agreed to the amount being charged against the rents. The tribe did not derive any benefit from the sheep. Te Aue sold them. I remember the purchase of sheep for Baniera te Whata. He distributed them among his relatives. The four hapus did not benefit. Ido not know anything about the £50 said to have been paid to Makere and Kiritotara. I heard that Warena Hunia had been paid a sum of £170. The four hapus did not derive any benefit from it. We heard that Wirihana Hunia received £433. The £33 went to pay his debts. I have not seen a translation of Kemp's statement of accounts. The four hapus did not benefit by the £433 paid to Wirihana—not even his own hapu, the Ngatipariri. I remember the £1,000 being paid to Makere in 1889. It was divided among the four hapus equally. Ihaia Taueki took the Ngaitamarangi portion. Kerehi Tomo and others took the Ngaiteao share. Hariata and Iritana took Ngatipariri share. I heard that Kemp paid £100 to Bangimairehau in 1890. I was at Parihaka at the time. Was told that it went to pay expenses of Muaupoko in Wellington, and that part of it was paid to J. M. Fraser. Heard of payment of £100 to Hapeta Taueki at Wanganui. Hapeta shared it with us, who went with him to Parihaka. lam satisfied the £800 now in the bank should be distributed by the Court. I was at Horowhenua when Court sat at Foxton in 1872 and 1873. I do not know anything about the payments to Cash. We heard that Kerqp had paid the lawyer at that time. Heard it from some of our own people who returned here from Foxton. Hapimana was one who told us. He did not tell us the amount. I have had the statement of accounts drawn up by J. M. Fraser explained to me. I assisted him. I approve of the expenditure by Kemp of the £115 and the £400 at time of Court of 1873. It was for the people who were fighting against the Ngatiraukawa. I heard that Kemp paid you £75 in 1886. You were conducting for the tribe. The £400 paid to Mr. S. Baker in 1886 was paid on account of the tribe. I only heard of one sum of £400 paid to Baker. I did not hear of a payment of £300 to Baker in 1889. The tribe consented to the payment by Kemp of £300 to Bell, Gully, and Izard ; also a sum of £10 10s. to the same firm. They were paid on account of the tribe. The £631 was paid to J. M. Fraser as conductor for the tribe. He was conducting for all the hapus; but some of the Ngatipariri went over to Wirihana Hunia in 1890 —nearly all of them. Mereana Maunu, Ngataahi, and Hema remained with Kemp. Hoani Puihi belonged to Wirihana's party in 1890. He was the only member of the other hapus who left Kemp. Motai Taueki was on Wirihana's side; so was Paranihia. Former is of Ngaitamarangi ; latter of Ngaiteao. Kemp has never expressed any intention of turning the people off No. 11. Wirihana Hunia has said that the whole" of the land belonged to him ; that was his way of turning them off. I heard Kemp say that if thepeople sold in No. 3 they should not participate in No. 11. It was merely a warning. He has always said he was a trustee of the people. He could not have given effect to it, because he was a trustee. If he had been like Warena he could have turned the people off. The people formed their own idea of what the warning meant. I heard that Kemp paid £250 for expenses of Muaupoko at Foxton in 1873. Ido not know who he paid it to; I was not there. I heard that Muaupoko received a present of food. Ido not know whether it was from the Government or private individuals. Ido not know who paid for the food. I heard that Kemp paid the expenses of Muaupoko. I think Kemp was justified in refunding the £20 to Benata Kawepo. It was paid for the tribe. Nearly all of them went. I remained there. I heard that Kemp paid the railway-fares of Muaupoko who attended Court of 1886—£36. I approved of the payment. Ido not know anything about the item £300 for expenses of Muaupoko at Court of 1886 or the £200 said to have been paid by Kemp for.expenses in Wellington. I cannot say anything about the £30, application for rehearing. Kemp had authority to do as he chose, and spend what he thought necessary. The £150 expenses of rehearing in 1891 was on behalf of the people. The £300, expenses in Parliament, was spent in fighting for Horowhenua. All the moneys spent in attending Parliament was on behalf of the people. Kemp was fighting to get back the land for the people, and they approved of what he did. The State farm was taken from us without our being consulted. Kemp at last succeeded in getting Horowhenua back for the people. I cannot say anything about the sums charged by Kemp for his personal expenses. I suppose it is right, because he was travelling in connection with the block. I did not get any

3—a. 2a.

G.—2a

18

benefit from the town. I heard that the tribe gave it to Kemp in 1886. The tribe know that he spent all the money in connection with the disputes over Horowhenua. The tribe did not ask him for any of the money derived from the township. Some of the tribe received money on account of the township. Kemp could give the money to whom he liked. The tribe did not agree to this being done. I think the sum of £200 charged by Kemp for his personal expenses from 1886 to 1896 is reasonable. I approve of payment of £30 to Sir Walter Buller for prosecuting Paki te Hunga and Hunia, and the £5 paid for expenses of Hector McDonald and another ; also the payment of £130 to Bu Beweti. I was not here when McDonald's cattle were killed, but I approve of item £23, paid to Baker. Hamuera Karaitiana: No questions. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : It is right that the tribe should defray the legal costs incurred in their behalf. Ido not think any of the owners of the land failed to participate in the rents derived from it until the troubles commenced ; then everything went in expenses. The members of the hapus who had not occupied were not entitled to receive any of the rents. If it is found that any of the members of Muaupoko have shared more largely in the rents derived from the land than others this should be considered when the distribution of the £800 is made. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness: I was present when Fraser made up statement of accounts. I helped him all I could. lam aware that Bangimairehau has a translation of it for the use of the people. lam familiar with the account. I approve of all the items charged by Kemp against the tribe, because the expenditure was on behalf of the tribe, and Kemp was working to get back the land for the tribe. He has succeeded in doing this. He has put all four hapus back on to No. 11, including Ngatipariri; therefore it is right that Ngatipariri should pay their share of the costs and expenses. Ido not know exactly how much Wirihana got. If Kemp says he paid him £500 I will not contradict him. It does not concern me personally. The reason Ngatipariri left Wirihana Hunia is that he did not consider them at all. He gave them nothing out of proceeds of the State farm. Neither Warena nor Wirihana made any attempt to put the people on the land. Warena and Wirihana insisted and asserted positively before Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Appeal Court that the land was Warena's absolutely, whereas Kemp contended that he and Warena were trustees. All Warena's witnesses before the parliamentary committee stated that the tribe had given Kemp and Warena No. 11 for themselves. Ngatipariri left Wirihana and joined the other three hapus of Muaupoko after they received the panui convening this Court. Ngatipariri joined Kemp of their own free-will. They were not asked by Kemp to go over to him. Kemp was at Wanganui when the four hapus met and agreed to support him. Neither Kemp, Fraser, nor yourself have attempted to intimidate us or to induce us to join Kemp. Wirihana and Te Whatahoro came to us and asKed us to join Wirihana and Warena, but we refused. They asked us to sign a document, but not one signed it. Bawinia Ihaia is a tuturu —Ngatipariri. She has never joined Wirihana's party. Hapeta Taueki is a son of Ihaia Taueki, who has a large claim on No. 11. The £100 paid to him by Kemp is the only sum Hapeta Taueki has received out of Horowhenua rents, and that he divided fairly among the twenty-seven persons with him, who were all ahika. The statement of accounts submitted by you to the Court was made out by Fraser at my request on behalf of the tribe. We did it of our own free-will. Kemp did not ask us to do it. I consider the account is a fair one, and is as correct as it can be made. The people wish the £735 13s. sd. still unaccounted for to be left as Kemp's share, and as some return for what he has done. The people agreed to this. I suggested that they should when we considered the accounts. All the tribe heard of it. None of them objected. [At 12 noon, there being a considerable number of persons present, the Court requested all the owners of Horowhenua now in Levin to be in attendance at 2.30 p.m., when any who chose would have an opportunity of giving evidence as to the statement of accounts rendered by Kemp.] Witness (to Sir W. Buller): I, Bangimairehau, Hema, Hori te Pa, Noa Tame, Hoani Puihi, and others were present when the accounts were considered. I said this morning that the tribe sent £200 to Kemp as a contribution towards cost of his house. Another £100 was sent with the food when the house was being built. The £100 sent to Kemp was that paid by McDonald to Ihaia on the 25th April, 1881. Ido not know what amount Kemp has paid to Warena Hakeke. 2.30 p.m. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Our lawyer told us that the price of the State farm was £6,000. My evidence before the Horowhenua Commission was not true. One of the reasons Ngatipariri left Wirihana was that he did not consult them about the sale of the State farm. Our lawyer told us this. It was also stated in evidence in the Supreme Court in Wanganui. Warena never said that the land belonged to the tribe. He always said that it belonged to him and Kemp. To this extent he turned the people off. This was the cause of all the trouble and litigation that has taken place since. I did not hear Warena say anything else. At Pipiriki meeting Kemp and Warena were asked to give back the land to the people. The tribe suggested that Wirihana should have 1,500 acres at Hokio, but he demanded the whole of the lake and the graveyard, but we would not agree to this. It was after the panui for this Court came out that the hapus met and agreed to act together. The Ngatipariri should contribute towards the costs of the litigation over Horowhenua, notwithstanding that Ngatipariri were with Wirihana, because Kemp got the land for them. Warena did not show them any consideration whatever. If Wirihana had incurred the expense, and saved the people, Kemp's side would have had to share the expense. Kemp has saved the land for Ngatipariri as well as the other hapus. It is proper for the land to bear the expense, because it has been recovered or the people. I have said that the tribe agreed to Kemp keeping the £735 13s. sd. for his share.

19

a.—2a

To Sir W. Buller [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 291, 292, and 293, read to witness]: That evidence was not true. The replies I gave were not true. To Assessor : From 1873 to 1882 the tribe drew the rents from Horowhenua. Ihaia took the rents from the lessee. After 1882 Kemp drew the rent himself. He gave some of it to members of the tribe ; the rest went in expenses. Ido not know whether the £1,000 sent to Makere came out of rents or out of proceeds of sale of part of the land. Ido not disapprove of the payment of £100 to Bangimairehau ; it was expended in furthering our interests. Some of the Muaupoko were in Wellington on the business of the tribe, and their expenses had to be paid. I heard that £50 was paid to Fraser. I have no objection to the expenditure of £5 for rent of house for descendants of Whatanui. I leave it for the Court to say whether Ihaia Taueki should not have the £735, or part of it. Mr. McDonald closed his case. The Court asked if all the persons residing at Levin interested in the Horowhenua Block were present. The reply was that they were nearly all present. The Court notified that Kemp had submitted a statement of accounts showing the amount received by him from rents, sales, and royalties in connection with the Horowhenua Block, and the disbursement by him of those amounts. Mr. McDonald had called witnesses as to the accounts, and the Court wished to know if any one else desired to give evidence about them. No one came forward. Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi said the resident members of the tribe admitted the accuracy of the account. Raraku Hunia said she wished to give some evidence in connection with the accounts. Sir W. Buller said he would call her as one of his witnesses. The Court announced that Sir W. Buller would be allowed to call any evidence he considered necessary to rebut that given by Mr. McDonald's witnesses, or in support of the accounts. Sir W. Buller called Te Bangimairehau. Te Bangimaieehau sworn. Witness : The £100 paid to me in July, 1890, I divided among the people who went to Wellington to attend Parliament. I gave £50 of it to J. M. Fraser. The other £50 I divided among Makere, Ngataahi, Te Manihera (who was with us), Broughton, Baniera te Whata, and myself equally. I was present at meeting when J. M. Fraser drew up the statement of accounts. All present agreed to it. It is as correct an account as can be made. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I gave Fraser the £50 because he was acting as our agent before the Native Affairs Committee. It was in addition to the £631 paid to him by Kemp. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I cannot pay the account presented by Kemp. It has already been paid; but I approve of it. I would not agree to pay Wirihana if he put in an account. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : We only kept £50 out of the £100 for ourselves. We paid our expenses out of it. Kemp spent £200 in expenses on that occasion also. He paid our expenses at a boarding-house, and rented a house for us. If we used the money of the widows and orphans it was expended on their behalf. Baeaku Hunia sworn. Witness: I am one of the permanent residents of Horowhenua. Have large claims to it. I am not clear as to the payment of £50 for sheep for Te Aue Puihi. I object to the £125 for sheep for Baniera te Whata. I had no benefit from them. I object to the £50 to Kiritotara, and to the £170 to Warena Hakeke. The payment of £533 to Wirihana Hunia is wrong. I approve of everything that was spent in defending the estate from Wirihana and Warena. The Court adjourned till the 28th instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 28th April, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Baraku Hunia cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I object to the £170 paid to Warena Hunia; he was not entitled to the whole of it. I object to the payments to Wirihana Hunia; the sums he received were far more than he should have received. I approve the legal costs and expenses in connection with No. 11, because Warena and Wirihana contended that they were the sole owners, while Kemp insisted that he and Warena were trustees for the tribe. The law gave me my share of the proceeds of the State farm, not Wirihana and Warena; they tried to keep their sisters out of it. I said in another Court lately that it was owing to my brother's exertions that the State farm was given to Hunia. I participated largely in the proceeds of the State farm. I object to the action of my brothers, because they have always contended that the land was Warena's, and not our father's. The law gave me my share of the State farm as successor to my father.

G.—2a

20

Ec-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : It was the Horowhenua Block Act that gave me the £800 from the State farm. Wirihana and Warena endeavoured to keep their sisters out. The Appellate Court awarded us all equal shares of the £4,000 except Warena, who got £1. I did not mean by what I said before that Court that I approved the action of Warena in endeavouring to keep the people out of No. 11. The Court intimated that it had jotted down the names of some persons it thought it might be desirable to call. It thought also it would be well to recall Wirihana Hunia, to explain the account referred to by him in his evidence, as he had stated that his father had paid large amounts in connection with Horowhenua. Sir W. Buller said he would like to call Mr. J. M. Fraser, to give evidence as to the execution by Kemp of declaration of trust. The Court said that had better be taken later. The Court said it had been suggested that after the relative interests of the persons found to be entitled to No. 11 had been determined the Court should locate the interests. This was not one of the duties devolving upon the Court, but if there was a general desire that the block should be partitioned the Court would make interlocutory orders, and allow the matter to stand over for the usual time within which appeals could be lodged, when, if there were no real objections, a final decree would be made. Sir W. Buller hoped the Court would locate the interests of owners, and said that the decision of the Court would be accepted by his clients as final. They would not appeal. He suggested that a surveyor should be employed to lay off the parcels, and that the cost of survey should be made a charge against the £800. Mr. J. M. Fraser, on behalf of his clients, urged the Court to locate the interests. He would guarantee that his clients would not appeal. Mr. McDonald cordially agreed to final location without appeal. Hamuera Karaitiana approved personally, but would like to consult his clients. The Court explained to the Native conductors the advantage of partitioning the block at the present sitting of the Court. After explanation by Court, Hamuera Karaitiana said he would bind his clients to accept the decision of the Court. Henare te Apatari agreed on behalf of his clients to abide by the decision of the Court, without appeal. Rawiri Rota Tahiwi appeared for Baraku Hunia and her party in place of Colonel McDonnell, who had withdrawn from the case. (Special license issued to him.) The Court announced that some of the registered owners were still unrepresented, and said that some decision must be arrived at regarding them before the question of definition of interests was gone into. The Court informed Sir W. Buller that it considered the costs of survey necessary for location of interests would be a fair charge against the £800. Sir W. Buller called Kerehi Tomo. Kerehi Tomo sworn. Witness: I assisted Mr. Fraser to make out Kemp's account of receipts and expenditure. It is a correct account. I think it is right that Kemp should charge his expenditure for legal costs. He was trying to get the land back for Muaupoko ; therefore he should get back all he expended. I approve of the expenditure for food, travelling, and lodging on the same grounds. The £800 now in the bank should go to the people. This Court should distribute it. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I approve of the expenditure in connection with No. 11, because Kemp has returned it to Muaupoko. It is for the tribe to say whether they would give back any part of the land to Kemp if he would ask for it. All the four hapus should share the expenses equally. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I assisted Fraser to make out statement of accounts. I approved of each item. I consider the £50 paid for sheep for Te Aue Puihi was her share. If it was more than she was entitled to, then she is responsible to the tribe. If the £125 paid for sheep for Baniera te Whata was more than his share he must refund it to the tribe. I cannot say that the people consented to the payment. Baniera distributed the sheep among some of the people. My son got fifty, Te Pae fifty, Muna fifty, John Broughton's daughter fifty, and Ngahuia fifty. Baniera has distributed the increase every year down to the present time. Baniera still has some of the original stock about 150 ; others have died. Fifty of the sheep were given to Tapita. Tuhi Hou and Taare Broughton each had fifty sheep. The 400 odd pounds paid to Wirihana Hunia should come out of his share of the land. I was not consulted about the payment to Wirihana. Kemp and I were not living together. Kemp consulted the tribe in some cases before making payments to individuals. In others he did not. To Court: The £200 sent to Wanganui came out of the rents. We sent it directly we received it. £400 paid to Muaupoko in 1876 was divided among the people. I remember the £100 being paid to Muaupoko in 1879 and the £400 in 1880. Both sums were divided among the people, excepting £36, which was devoted to expenses of prosecuting Paki te Hunga and Hunia. I remember the £100 paid to Muaupoko in April, 1881; this was not the £100 sent to Kemp with the food. John Broughton sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have not attended meetings of Fraser's clients. I have seen statement of accounts put in by Kemp. I have nothing to say

G.—2a

21

against it, so far as the expenditure is connected with No. 11. I am aware that the expenditure was necessary owing to the contest that arose over No. 11. I think the expenditure is a fair charge against all of the owners. I object to the payments to Warena and Wirihana Hunia. We derive no benefit from those payments; their shares should be charged with the amounts. I am willing that this Court should distribute the £800 now in the bank. I am satisfied with Kemp's administration of the affairs of the block in the past. I have no complaint to make against him. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I approve of the expenditure of moneys which have been necessary to get back the land for the people. I consider the land has been returned to the people. This Court will define the relative interests of the owners. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I object to the payments made to Wirihana. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I have looked upon Kemp as a trustee for the tribe. The only moneys received from No. 11 by Kemp have been rents and timber royalties. I have never known Kemp consult the tribe about the disposition of the rents. He dealt with those moneys as he thought proper as trustee. The payments made to Wirihana Hunia were made without the consent of the tribe. I do not know that the tribe were consulted about the payment of £100 to Hapeta Taueki, but no one could question the payment. Ido not object to the £100 to Bangimairehau. It was expended on behalf of the tribe. Kemp did not come here and consult us about the payment. The £50 paid to Te Aue Puihi I did not hear of until this Court opened. I heard of the £125 to Baniera te Whata. The tribe were not asked to consent to either of these payments. I did not receive any part of the £50 paid to Makere on account of Buatangata case. The money was paid without consulting the tribe, so far as I know. When I first arrived here in 1883 I heard the tribe say that they had enjoyed the rents from 1873 up to 1883, and that they intended to allow Kemp to draw them in the future for the lease then current, in order that he might reimburse himself for the expense he was put to at time of Court of 1873. The four hapus drew the rent before 1883. All four hapus agreed that Kemp should receive the rents from 1882 to the end of the lease. When Kemp sent us the £1,000 I did not suggest to Makere to return it to him. I consider that Kemp has expended the moneys he received on my behalf. Be-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I approve of Kemp exercising discretion in the administration of the estate. lam satisfied with his administration. To Assessor : I have nothing to say about the distribution by Taueki of the rents received by him. My mother was here and participated. I was living with Europeans at Wanganui. I have heard about the sums of money sent to Kemp at Wanganui. I am prepared to contribute my share of the legal charges in connection with Horowhenua. Aeiki te Baueau sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have not attended the recent meetings of the tribe for the purpose of making up Kemp's accounts of receipts and expenditure, but I have heard of those meetings. I was too busy to attend the meetings, i have heard about the accounts, and the object with which they were drawn up. I approved of the accounts when I heard of them. I understand that Kemp has charged against the tribe all moneys that he has expended in legal costs, food, and expenses. I approve of his expenditure, because it was on behalf of the tribe. I know that the expenditure has been taken by Kemp out of rent, royalties, and proceeds of sale of township. lam aware that there is still a balance of £800 standing to the credit of the tribe, and at the disposal of the Court. lam satisfied with Kemp's administration of Horowhenua. I have no complaint to make. Kemp has acted in the interests of the tribe. I say this of my own free-will. No one has asked me to say it. Hamuera Karaitiana and Henare te Apatari had no questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I am the eldest of my family, and take an interest in what is being done in connection with Horowhenua. lam aware that rent has been received for this land for many years, and that Kemp was trustee for the tribe for the whole block from 1873 to 1886. At first the rent was divided between the four hapus named by Waata Muruahi yesterday. Taitoko (Kemp) drew the rents, and handed them to the tribe. He paid the rents to the tribe when the tribe asked him to do so. The only money I saw paid was the £400 at Waitai. lam a Ngaiteao. My hapu received £100. I heard that Kemp paid several other sums as rent after the £400, but I was not present. Whatever Kemp did was right. He was working for the tribe. I did not make any inquiries as to Kemp's expenditure, because I knew he was spending it in connection with the land. Kemp did not consult me; he may have consulted others. So long as I knew Kemp was working for the tribe I was satisfied. Hema Henaee sworn. Witness : lam a chief of Ngatipariri, and a registered owner of Horowhenua. I have attended all the meetings held over Kemp's account. I have taken an active part in assisting Mr. Fraser to make it up. I approve of the expenditure by Kemp, because the money was spent in the interests of the Muaupoko Tribe. I believe the account to be as nearly as possible a true account of the receipts and expenditure by Kemp. The first amount sent to Kemp at Wanganui was £100. Afterwards a sum of £200 was sent to him for his house and his meetings. The £100 was sent with

G.—2a

22

a present of food in June, 1881. I know that Kemp claims credit for £100 paid to Ihaia in April of that year. That £100 was divided equally among the four hapus. I received a share of it. This was not the £100 sent to Kemp. Ihaia Taueki got it from McDonald himself. I have nothing to say about the £50 paid for sheep for Te Aue Puihi. She received some of the rent in addition to the sheep. The sheep bought for Baniera were distributed by him among the family of his cousin. I approve of this payment by Kemp. I approve of the payment by Kemp of £50 to Makere and Kiritotara. I approve generally of all the items in the account. I entirely approve of the administration of Horowhenua by Kemp on behalf of the tribe. The tribe approve also. I know that there is a balance of £800 in the bank, and that it belongs to the tribe. I agree on behalf of my section of Ngatipariri to the Court distributing the amount. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I, Kerehi, Waata, Hori te Pa, and many others assisted Fraser to draw up the account. We did it from memory. I am certain the amounts shown as paid to Muaupoko are correctly shown. There is written evidence of the payments, but we had no writings of our own. I had some of the sheep bought for Baniera. My wife had. She is a Ngatipariri; her mother, Kerehi, is a Ngatipariri; so is Makere te Bou. Henare te Apatari: No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: The £200 sent to Kemp came out of the rents. The £100 was sent to Kemp first. Ihaia drew it from the rent. lam sure there was another £100 drawn, because I had some of the money. Waata Muruahi supplied Mr. Fraser with the information as to these amounts. Ido not know the year I participated in the £100 drawn by Ihaia. Ihaia Taueki drew the £200 which was sent to Kemp from the tenant. I know that the £200 was laid before the four hapus. Cannot give date. I remember Ihaia, Noa, and McDonald taking it to Kemp. The £100 was treated in the same way. It was laid before the four hapus, and they agreed to its being sent to Kemp. Kemp was the caretaker of the money and the land. If he chose to make payments to individuals I would not complain. I never have done; nor have the people. The people allowed Kemp full control of the moneys received by him from Horowhenua. I never heard of any one going to Kemp and suggesting that he should, expend Horowhenua money in any particular way. I was at Palmerston at time of Court of 1886. Kemp asked us to allow him to sell the township for the benefit of the Maoris. I heard that " tenths " were to be retained for us. I did not hear that the survey-costs were to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of township. Ido not know that he sold the township on conditions that " tenths " were to be returned to us. lam satisfied with terms of sale of township. We have been benefited by the occupation of the land by Europeans. I have no complaint to make. I have had some of the money paid for the township. I think the balance of £753 odd should be left to Kemp. Be-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I heard Kemp tell the Boyal Commission that he tried to get the " tenths," but that Mr. Ballance swept them away. To Assessor: £200 out of the £400 I saw paid to Muaupoko was given to Ngatiapa. The first £100 was drawn by Ihaia in 1881, and distributed among the people. I only remember £300 being drawn the year the presents were sent to Kemp. I believe it was in 1882 that the lease was handed over to Kemp, and he was authorised to draw the rents. Sir W. Buller put in extra items of expenditure by Kemp. Hannah Bettee sworn. Witness : I have heard Kemp's statement of account read out. I agree to some of the items, but object to others. I object to the £50 for sheep for Te Aue, and the £125 for sheep for Baniera. I do not object to the payments to Warena and Wirihana Hunia, or to the payments of rent to Muaupoko. Ido not object to any of the amounts charged by Kemp for expenses in the Supreme Court, the Native Land Court, and Parliament. I have no objection to the amounts charged for expenses of Muaupoko at Foxton and Palmerston. Ido not know what the £200 was sent to Kemp for, so I object to it. I object to the £100 paid to Bangimairehau. I got a share of the £1,000 sent to Bangimairehau. I was paid £9. I agree to the £500 charged by Kemp for personal expenses. I object to all sums paid to lawyers for actions in the Supreme Court, but I do not object to expenses in the Native Land Court. I think that Kemp should get credit for all moneys he has expended in getting a trust declared in No. 11, but I object to some of the money he has paid to lawyers. Hamuera Karaitiana and Henare te Apatari had no questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: I heard in 1890 that No. 11 was to be divided between Kemp and Warena. Nothing else. I did not hear that Warena proposed to give any part of the land to the people. I heard that Kemp was going to give it to the people, but when we went into Court I found that it was to be divided between Kemp and Warena. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : My name was left out of title in 1873. Kemp asked Court of 1886 to set apart a block of land for us (4,600 acres). I have not got a title to it yet. I am still on Wirihana's side. Ido not approve of his statement that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena. If I get my title to No. 11 I will not object to any proper charges to lawyers and agents. The Court adjourned till the 29th instant.

23

G.—2a

Levin, Thuesday, 29th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Makeee te Bou sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I assisted Mr. Fraser in making up Kemp's statement of account. It is a true account of the receipts and expenditure by Kemp— all the payments by Kemp for lawyers, agents, meetings, food, and other expenses. We agreed to the expenditure because he was acting on behalf of the people. We were not turned off the land. No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena in 1886. Warena was put in without my knowledge. He said that he had no tribe, and that the land was for him alone. I did not approve of this; nor did Kemp. He said the land belonged to the tribe. The troubles in connection with the land were caused by Warena. Kemp had to pay the lawyers, and that is why I say he should be repaid. I know that Kemp has paid himself out of rents, royalties, and proceeds of sale of town. The £800 in the bank belongs to the tribe. Speaking for myself and the tribe, I agree to the Court distributing the amount among the ahika. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I say that the £800 should be paid to the permanent residents. I have occupied Horowhenua permanently. So did my parents and ancestors. That is why I say that we are entitled to the £800. I contend that the permanent occupants of Horowhenua are the proper persons to participate in the £800. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Kemp should not have any part of the £800, because it is the last of the rent moneys. Ido not say this because Kemp has no rights to the land. He has good claims to it. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Kemp will give us back No. 11 and No. 6. Warena has said that we were to be turned off the land. lam wrong; I misunderstood the last question. I mean that Warena said he had no tribe, and that the land was his only. He said this in Palmerston. I heard him say it at the Court in Palmerston. I did not ask Warena what he meant by what he said. You led him astray. You know that he said it. Warena made the same statement in Parliament. I did not ask Warena what he meant by his statement, because we were enemies. Warena and Wirihana became estranged from me on account of the £1,000 I received from Kemp in Wanganui. They were angry because Kemp did not give them any money. That commenced the quarrel, and it was continued about the land. Why should Igo to Warena ? The land belonged to me and the tribe. I had no doubt about what Warena meant. He was guided by you in saying what he did. He said it publicly. Every one heard it. The large sums that have been spent by Kemp in litigation were expended on behalf of the people, and the expenditure was justified. The quarrel between Kemp and Wirihana was caused by Warena contending that the land was his absolutely. In 1890 No. 11 was divided between Kemp and Warena. Kemp applied for rehearing. Original decision was confirmed. Kemp wished to give the people the part awarded to him, but we said, " Wait until the land is in such a position that we can obtain the whole of it." I am in the Buatangata Block. Kemp paid Kiritotara and me £50 for our expenses in connection with that block. This amount should be charged to us. I heard that Kemp gave £400 odd to Wirihana and Warena to pay their debts with. The tribe did not object to the payment. The tribe allowed Kemp to disburse the rents as he thought fit. Sir W. Buller did not wish to re-examine. To Assessor : Te Paki and Bihipeti do not occupy this land. Bihipeti left Horowhenua when she married Nireaha. She was born here. I brought her up. I brought Te Paki here from your kaingas. He had not been here long when Hanita quarrelled with him, and he went to Bangitikei. I admit the rights of Himiona Kowhai by occupation. The £753 should be left to Kemp. Wieihana Hunia recalled on former oath and examined by Court. The Court said that Mr. McDonald had mentioned some days ago that he wished to put in an account, and that this would be a good opportunity to do so. Witness: I remember the account. My brother declared that it was a true and correct account. I dare say I would understand it if it were shown to me. [Hansard, 1896, page 217, handed to witness.] I think the total amount of the account was £4,000 odd, but Warena and Donald Fraser would know more than Ido about it. [Account read out, excluding interest.] I heard from Kawana Hunia that it cost him £100 when he went to Wellington to arrange about the survey of exterior boundary of Horowhenua. I do not know why the expense of his trip was so heavy. The £160 paid by Hunia to Cash in 1873 was the balance of Cash's account after taxation. Hunia gave Ngatikahungunu, Ngatiapa, and Bangitane £50 in 1873. He spent £50 in the same year for food. I think the amount should be more. I believe Mr. Booth deducted £100 from purchase-money for Aorangi, for food supplied. £140 spent in connection with Te Kupe meeting. This meeting was in 1870. It was a large meeting called to do away with Whatanui's mana over Horowhenua. Hunia borrowed £100 from Donald Fraser for Court expenses in 1872 or 1873. This is separate from the two sums of £50 spent in purchase of food in 1873. One of those sums of £50 was derived from the sale of land by Te Peina Tohikura. He gave the £50 to Hunia, or, rather, Mr. Wardell, the purchaser, gave it to him. The other £50 was part of the proceeds of sale of Aorangi. I know of the £200 paid to B. W. Woon for Mr. Cash. That is the £200 mentioned in my evidence. £40 was deducted from this sum, but Kemp kept it. He did not return it to

G.—2a

24

Hunia. Bemember the £29 7s. paid to Stevens in 1874. I think this amount is fairly chargeable to Horowhenua. Ngatiraukawa insisted on remaining on the land, although it had been awarded to Muaupoko, and Hunia burnt their houses in order to get rid of them. I think the £100 paid to Cash for defending Hunia was justifiable on the same ground. £150 in 1886 :I am not clear about that amount, but I may have spent it. In 1890 I spent £325 for food and rent for Ngatipariri and for their railway-fares. It was expended for No. 3as well as for No. 11. The £200 paid to Mr. A. McDonald was for clerical assistance and briefing our case. The £500 was paid to Barnicoat for legal advice and assistance in connection with No. 11. Ido not know anything about the £200 paid to Donald Fraser for fees and expenses. Warena would know. Ido not know about the payment to Mr. Barnicoat of £400 in 1891, or the payment of £150 to McDonald. I am not clear about the £325 lent by Mr. Donald Fraser. Ido not remember the payment of £100 to Barnicoat in 1893 in connection with petitions to Parliament. I remember paying the £75 for witnesses' expenses. I remember the £620 paid for legal expenses. I paid Donald Fraser and Warena over £300 of it. I cannot give particulars of the sum of £495 paid for expenses in connection with Horowhenua Commission. I paid £170 to conductors and £47 for food. I cannot say whether interest should be charged on the amounts expended. The £170 I paid conductors and the £40 for food for Ngatipariri are included in the £495. I know of the claim of £34,900 against Kemp. I do not know whether it is a reasonable claim. I believe Kemp has received £13,000 odd from Horowhenua. Mr. Stevens drew up the claim. One Maori chief would not demand interest from another, but this account was made up by a European. Henare te Apatari: No questions. To Mr. McDonald : I was not present when the accounts were made up by Stevens and Warena. Ido not remember whether I saw them before they were mentioned in Parliament. Kemp gave the first lease of Horowhenua in 1874. I heard Makere say this morning that she heard Warena say that the land was his, and that he had no tribe. I did not hear Warena say that, nor have I ever said it myself. In 1891, I think, Warena asked Muaupoko to assemble in the Square at Palmerston. Kemp did not attend. Warena informed Muaupoko that he wanted Major Kemp to give effect to his statement that the land was the people's by giving them a part of that awarded to him. Hoani Puihi supported what Warena had said. Bangimairehau and others disagreed with what Warena had said, and the meeting broke up. Warena meant by what he said that the land was his by Maori custom, and that his title had been confirmed by law. He did not mean that it was his only, but that it belonged to him and his hapu. The fact of the land being awarded to Warena personally would not justify him in turning the people off the land. He has never expressed any such intention. Warena handed Mr. Cadman a list of names of Ngatipariri who he agreed should share No. 11 with him. Neither Warena nor I have ever repudiated the list. The money expended since 1890 has been expended on behalf of the persons in that list. I was not present when the list was handed to Mr. Cadman. Warena defended all actions brought against him by Kemp for himself and his hapu, the Ngatipariri. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: I have not submitted my account with the object of obtaining payment by Ngatipariri. Ido not ask them to pay it. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I still say that Warena is not a trustee for the tribe. The law gave him the land, and it is for him to consider his hapu. It is for Warena to say who of his hapu of Ngatipariri should go in with him. If any one complained they could go to law. It was tor Warena and some of his hapu to say how much Ngatipariri should have—those selected by him. I cannot say who Warena would select. Warena is absolute owner of the land by law. He has Whakaaro rangatira. According to law he could keep everybody out, but he prepared a list of names of those who were to go in with him. He knew that he had a hapu to consider. Ido not admit that Kemp went to law to get a trust declared in favour of the people. He took action because Warena pressed him to account. I admit that the result of Kemp going to law is that the tribe are put back on No. 11. Warena has no committee of Ngatipariri now to consult with. When Ngatipariri were with him he told them he had prepared a list of names. Ido not know whether he had any Committee then. Warena told Ngatipariri that he intended to sell the State farm. He told Hoani Puihi and others. Kemp was the first to sell the land. He received £5 on account of the sale. Then the Government came to Warena. A Proclamation was issued over the land which prevented all sales to private individuals. Warena did not pay Ngatipariri any part of the £2,000. I did not receive any part of it. I got £800 out of the £4,000. It all went in expenses and law-costs incurred in fighting Kemp. Warena has contended that the land was his, but he intended to consider his hapu. None of the other hapus of Muaupoko have any right to the portion of No. 11 that was awarded to Warena. In my opinion, Warena's name was put in No. 11 as a trustee for Ngatipariri. No. 11 was awarded to Warena, but he was under an obligation to consider his hapu. W T arena was put in No. 11 to hold it for himself and his hapu, the Ngatipariri. To Mr. McDonald (through Court) [Horowhenua Commission, page 170, question 17 and reply, read] : I did not hear Kemp give that evidence. To Court: Kemp made it appear that he wished to put the people back on the land, but his real object was to avoid accounting for rents. Notwithstanding that Ke,mp continued to advocate the rights of the people after the deed of release was signed by Muaupoko. I still consider he was actuated by the motive I have stated. I object to the account rendered by Kemp. Ido not think that Kemp should have paid away any money until he knew who were entitled to receive it, and in what proportion. Warena was not as bad as Kemp. He never made any proposal to Kemp that he could not approve. All the trouble has been caused by Kemp.

25

G.—2a

Warena has not been fighting for himself alone. He has been fighting for himself and hapu. Kemp denied the rights of Pariri to Horowhenua. He said Ngatipariri was a new hapu name. I hear now that the reason the Ngatipariri left Warena and I was because we sold the State farm and did not give them any of the proceeds. I contend that Kemp is responsible to us for all the moneys he has received from Horowhenua. His sole object was to defeat Warena, and get the whole of No. 11 for himself and Muaupoko. I appealed from the decision of the Supreme Court because it decided that Warena was to account for the £2,000. That was one reason. Another was that it decided that Kemp and Warena were trustees for the whole tribe. If it had said that Warena was a trustee for Ngatipariri I would not have appealed. I think that Kemp should bear the whole burden of the account rendered by him. If the majority of the people agree to it they can share the burden between them with him. I will bear the burden of my account. I will not ask that any part of it be charged against Ngatipariri. I suppose the people have agreed to the account prepared by Fraser because they are afraid of Kemp. Ido not ask any of the Muaupoko to share the burden of my account, nor will I ask the Court to take it into consideration in assessing my interest. It was the Muaupoko, and not Kemp, who refused the offer made to them by Warena and myself of land in No. 11. If they had accepted it Kemp would not have objected. I did not receive any of the £2,000 paid to Warena. I did not hear Donald Fraser say before Appellate Court in Wellington that he had paid me any of it. If he did say so he was wrong. It all went in expenses. Himiona Kowhai sworn. Witness : I have heard of the statement of account. I approve of some of the items, not all of them. I did not assist to draw up the account. I approve of the amounts that have been paid to the tribe —those that were fairly divided. I remember the £400 paid by H. McDonald to Muaupoko in 1876. I approve of the payment of £100 in 1877. I did not get any share of the £364 paid on the 13th September, 1880, to Ihaia and Muaupoko. I remember the £100 paid on the 25th April, 1881. That was the time of the feast at Wanganui. I approve it. I object to the £300 sent to Kemp as a present. I do not know anything about the £300 paid to Muaupoko on the 29th December, 1882. I object to the £50 paid for sheep for Te Aue Puihi and the £125 paid for sheep for Baniera. I also object to the £50 paid to Kiritotara and Makere. I object to the £170 paid to Warena and the £533 paid to Wirihana. I do not agree that these sums shall be charged against my share. I approve the item £1,000 paid to Muaupoko in 1889. Ido not agree to the £100 paid to Bangimairehau and Hapeta Taueki. The £800 should be distributed among those who have not received their shares of the rents. If I benefit by the sums expended by Kemp in law-costs I will not object to them. Ido not object to the sum of £500 charged by Kemp for his personal charges. I object to the sums paid for lawcosts and agency charges in the Supreme Court, but not those in the Native Land Court before 1886. I object to the expenses incurred by Kemp in the Native Land Court after 1886, because I was on Warena's side then. I will not object to the expenses incurred in attending Parliament if I benefit by them. Hamuera Karaitiana and Henare te Apatari had no questions. To Mr. McDonald : I have participated in Horowhenua rents on four different occasions. The last time was when the £1,000 was sent to Makere. In 1886 the land was awarded to Kemp and Warena only, but Warena always spoke of Ngatipariri. I have assisted Wirihana and Warena with money. I think I have given them £150. I got it out of rent of my land leased to Prouse. He paid it to me in advance, about two years ago. I paid this money, believing it would be for the benefit of Ngatipariri. Cross-examined by Sir Walter Buller. Witness :I do not know why Ngatipariri have left Warena and gone to Kemp. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, questions 271 to 277, read.] I remember giving that evidence. When I said it was our fault I meant it was our fault for not going to the Court in 1886 and making it known to the Court that Kemp and Warena were trustees. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, questions 289 to 291, read.] I gave that evidence. It is true. It is only lately I have found out that the people have rights to the land. When the case came before the Supreme Court I heard that Warena was defeated in that Court, and that the decision was confirmed on appeal. This was the result of Kemp's proceedings. To Court: I did not know for certain that No. 11 was held in trust for the people until this Court was advertised. Warena told me that he would admit into his share those of Ngatipariri who were on his side ; no others. He did not say he would admit me because I gave him £150. The Court adjourned till the 30th instant.

Levin, Feiday, 30th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Sir W. Buller called Keepa te Bangihiwinui. Keepa te Bangihiwinui sworn. Witness : I gave Wirihana the first £100 at the Bank Hotel, Wellington, when we arrived in Wellington about sale of township. Our object in going to Wellington was the sale of totara to the Eailway Company. McDonald took us down. We did not know anything about sale of township until we arrived there. This was at end of 1885, or early in 1886. I received £500, I think it was, on account of the township, and I gave Wirihana £100 of it. I may have received £300 4—a. 2a.

Q.—2&

26

only; I forget. My wife, Nepia te Tauri, Bipeka, and others were present when I paid Wirihana this £100. I paid him in notes. I did not take a receipt, not being in the habit of doing so. I think it was in 1887 I gave Wirihana the second £100. It was the year that Ngapuhi brought their treaty to Parliament. Wirihana lived at the Wellington Hotel. I was in lodgings. At the end of the session of that year I gave Wirihana £100, in two £50 notes, to pay his debts with. He said he was heavily in debt. lam sure this was distinct from the £100 paid in the Bank Hotel. I paid Court fees in 1886, but I forget the amount. I believe the supplementary account put in by you to be correct. I paid Palmerson and Scott £17 175., as per receipt put in. I paid £16 3s. 6d. valuation fees, not £12 125., as I said before. I ask Court to give me credit for these amounts. I also ask the Court to give me credit for £4 10s. paid to Davies for clearing fencing-line along the boundary between Horowhenua and his property. I am sure that I have made many other payments on behalf of the tribe during the last twenty-three years that I have forgotten. The statement of my expenditure as shown in the account is an under-estimate. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: Some part of the £1,000 I sent to Makere was returned to me. I cannot, remember how much: perhaps £100, or more. The £1,000 was given to the tribe, and they, of their own free-will, returned me some of it as their chief. I paid Wirihana the £100 at the Bank Hotel to relieve him of his debts. He said he was in danger of arrest. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I do not know whether the four hapus returned me the money or whether some only of the hapus did so. It was the custom for all the hapus to contribute to the presents of money and food sent to me. Sir W. Buller stated that his case regarding the accounts was closed. Case closed. Hoeowhenua Nos. 6, 11, and 12. The Court said that, as Kemp was present, it proposed to take his evidence as to the existence of a trust in Nos. 6, 11, and 12. There had been a good deal of evidence given before former Courts that could be put in, in addition to the oral evidence that would be given now, in support of the contention that there was a trust. There were several applications before the Court to have a trust declared in these blocks. In order to save recalling witnesses it would be best to take that of Te Baraku Hunia. Mr. J. M. Fraser suggested that it would shorten the case if Mr. McDonald would admit the trust. Mr. McDonald said he admitted the trust in No. 6 and a moral obligation in No. 11, but he denied that there was any trust in No. 12, which he contended was given to Ihaia Taueki for himself. Application by Raraku Hunia. (No. 13, O. 78-55.) Sir W. Buller put in all the evidence in support of a trust given before the Native Land Court in 1890; Behearing Court in 1891; Supreme Court, Wanganui, in 1894; and before the Horowhenua Court in 1886. Mr. McDonald asked permission to put in any evidence that had a direct bearing on the case, either against a trust being declared or indicating the nature of a trust if it existed. Permission granted. J. M. Feasee on former oath. Witness: lam aware that certificates of titles under the Land Transfer Act have issued for Horowhenua Nos. 6, 11, and 12 [No. 11, vol. 29a, folio 130]. I have seen the titles for Nos. 6 '■and 12. I produce a declaration of trust by Kemp in No. 11 Block. It was signed by Major Kemp in my presence, and on the 31st March, 1890, was, in my presence, tendered to the Court at Palmerston by Mr. Baker. Mr. Barnicoat objected to the Court receiving the declaration. The Court declined to receive it, and stated this land is not held in trust for a tribe or hapu (vide vol. 13, page 268). The declaration of trust came back to my hands on the 31st March, 1890, and has remained in my hands ever since. I have searched the titles for Nos. 6, 11, and 12. There is nothing on the face of the titles to indicate a trust. There were no caveats when I searched the titles, nor any declarations of trust under Land Transfer Act. To Mr. McDonald: I first came into the Horowhenua No. 11 case on the sth March, 1890. The records of the Court show that question of trust had been brought before it before the sth March (vide vol. 13, page 85 :"It is said this land is subject to a trust," &c). I think the Court opened at Palmerston in January, 1890. With the exception of considerable adjournments it sat continuously till I was engaged in the case. Keepa te Bangihiwinui on former oath. Witness : I remember applying to Court in 1886 to set apart No. 6in my own name. The Court made an order in my favour. A certificate of title has issued to me. I hold the land for the people of my tribe who were omitted from the original certificate of Horowhenua, who I consider I should select. Ido not claim any part of No. 6 for myself, but I consider that I should select the persons to be put in the title. The title to No. 11 has been issued to Warena Hunia and myself. I hold No. 11 as trustee for the tribe. The land is theirs and mine. I have a right to share in it. I hope the Court will remain here until it has put the people on the land. A certificate of title has issued in favour of Ihaia Taueki for No. 12. He was put in as trustee. He will

GL—2a.

say so if he is asked. It was not intended for himself alone. Ihaia knows that he is a trustee, and is willing to divide it among those entitled to it—that is to say, the permanent residents of Horowhenua. The tribe wished my name put in, but Baniera objected because No. 11 had been awarded to me. Several others were suggested, but I said it had better be awarded to Ihaia, and this was done. I was not in Court when Wirihana said he gave No. 12 to Ihaia for himself. I did not hear him say it in 1886. Hamuera Karaitiana : No questions. Henare te Apatari : No questions. To Mr. McDonald : lam a chief of Muaupoko. My grandfather could not write. His word was his bond. The people believe what I say. [Vol. 13, page 177, Kemp's evidence, read: " No. 12 is in Ihaia Taueki's name," &c.J I said that it was given to Ihaia Taueki as a chief to distribute as he thought fit. He was to decide who should have it, without interference from outsiders. Now it is the duty of the Court to decide who are entitled to it. Ihaia Taueki is a very old man. He is anxious that it should be divided among the people. He will tell you so if you ask him. I have always said that No. 11 was for the ahika —the Muaupoko who reside here; not the people who were put on the hills. They will not come to interfere with Muaupoko, although you have tried to induce them to do so. I am quite willing that the Court should decide who are entitled to No. 11. I merely intended to warn my people when I told them that if they sold in No. 3 they should not have any of No. 11. I could not have kept them out of No. 11 if they had occupation. My having given the warning showed that I considered myself a trustee for them. To Sir W. Buller : From the time No. 11 was awarded to me in 1886 down to the present I have always said that I was a trustee for the resident Muaupoko. It was at the time of division of the land of 1890 that I first found my co-trustee was claiming the land as his own. [Declaration of trust produced.] I recognise my signature to that document. Mr. Fraser explained it to me before I signed it. It was tendered to the Court, but the Court refused it, saying that we were not trustees. Notwithstanding this, I have always contended that Warena and I were trustees for the residential Muaupoko. I am perfectly willing that this Court should take evidence and determine who are the true ahika, and what their shares are in the block, and I desire the Court to locate the interests of the owners. I will not appeal from their decision. Hoani Puihi on former oath. Witness : I was present at Court of 1886—all the time. I remember No. 12 being called on. There was some discussion amongst us as to who it should be vested in. If the people had agreed to No. 12 being awarded to me I should have considered I held it in trust for the people. If it had been vested in Baniera or Bangimairehau the people would have considered that they held it in trust. It was eventually awarded to Ihaia Taueki in trust for the people. No. 6 was allotted to Kemp for the rerewaho. It was not intended that he should have any part of it. I was in Court when No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena. The people wished Kemp to hold it as trustee for them. I am sure the people did not intend it for Warena and Kemp only. It was not divided in the same manner as No. 3, because questions of the rights to it were too troublesome to adjust at that time. Ido not quite know why all our names were not put into No. 11 in 1886. Warena and Kemp were put into No. 11 as trustees. Hamuera Karaitiana and Henare te Apatari did not wish to cross-examine. To Mr. McDonald : Ihaia Taueki was put into No. 12 as trustee because he was trustworthy. We did not like to vest the land in a person who was unreliable, as he might keep the land for himself. That is why Ihaia was chosen. Kemp agreed to it. We knew that a dishonest person could have disposed of the land against our wishes, and that is why we selected a kaumatua that we could trust. Ihaia knew that the tribe were interested, and would not sell. We selected Kemp as our trustee in No. 11 because he had administered the land honestly since 1873, and admitted the rights of the tribe. We did not select any person as co-trustee with Kemp at our meetings. I first heard Warena proposed in the Court. [Vol. xiv., page 306, witness' evidence, read: " What was arranged at Palmerson's house," &c] I heard when I returned from Levin to Palmerston that Warena's name had been put in No. 11 with Kemp's, and I said, " E pai ana." That is what I said before the Court in 1891. I was not present when it was arranged that Warena should be a co-trustee with Kemp, but when I heard of it I agreed. It was not intended that No. 11 should remain always in the names of Kemp and Warena. Kemp has agreed that it should go back to the people, and this Court will determine the relative interests. We thought after dealing with the lands for the rerewaho and outside tribes in 1886 that we had done enough, Kemp knew who the ahika of Muaupoko were. To Sir W. Buller : I was with Warena's party in 1890. [Vol. 13, page 243, read.] I looked upon Kemp as being a trustee for the tribe in 1873, and I looked upon these two as trustees in 1886. I remember saying that; it is true. It was dishonest of Warena to sell 1,500 acres to the Government in No. 11. He betrayed the confidence of his hapu, the Ngatipariri. He did not consult us before selling it. We heard nothing of it until after the money was paid. I have not heard that any one outside of the Hunia family received any of the proceeds from the State farm ; they may have. I hope this Court will locate the interests of "all the persons interested in No. lL I will undertake not to appeal from the decision. I wish Judge Mackay to settle all the disputes. All the tribe desire this. To Court: I remember the Court of 1873. All the owners were ascertained at that time. Kemp was selected as trustee for them. He was a trustee until 1886, when he returned the land to the people. It was then divided into fourteen different parcels. I remember No. 3 being divided among 106 persons—los acres each. We did not know at that time that the law under which Kemp had previously held the land as trustee had been altered. If we had known that the law vested No. 11 in Kemp and Warena absolutely we would have taken some steps to protect the rights

27

G.—2a

28

of the tribe. If the Court had told us that its order vested No. 11 in Kemp and Warena absolutely we would not have agreed to it. We were under the impression that the same law was in force as that which existed in 1874. Wieihana Hunia on former oath. Witness : I was present at the Court of 1886. I am aware that Kemp asked that this land— No. 6 —should be vested in him, but not for himself. It was intended for the Muaupoko who had been omitted from the title of 1873. All Muaupoko understand this. I was present in Court when No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena. It was awarded to them for themselves only. Muaupoko agreed to this. They were in the Court, and none of them objected. The Court explained to Muaupoko that it was going to award No. 11 to Kemp and Warena for themselves alone. The theory of a trust is new. No one objected. No. 11 was and is in the constant occupation of Muaupoko, but so was No. 2, which has been sold. With the exception of a small area of No. 2, the houses and cultivations of Muaupoko have been on No. 11 from time immemorial. It is not usual for Maoris to give up their kaingas and cultivations to others who do not occupy them. No. 11 was not given to Kemp and Warena to protect from Te Whatanui and Ngatiraukawa. The action of my father removed the mana of Te Whatanui from the land, and so secured to the people their kaingas and mahingas .-on No. 11. I do not think that No. 11 was placed in the names of Kemp and Warena to hold in the same manner that Kemp had held the whole block since 1873. Mr. McDonald, who was Kemp's agent at the time, fully explained the law to the people. Kemp also understood the law. Judge Wilson's evidence before the Supreme Court in 1894 is, in my opinion, unreliable. He was speaking from memory only when he said that Kemp and Warena were put in as trustees. If Warena's name had not been put in No. 11 I would have applied for a rehearing of all the other parcels. I said this at the time. I was present in Court when an order was made in favour of Ihaia Taueki for No. 12. It was awarded to Ihaia Taueki for himself only. None of the Muaupoko objected. It was not agreed outside that Ihaia's name should be put in because he was honest and would not prejudice the rights of the people. It was first proposed to vest No. 12 in Kemp and Warena. Baniera objected to this, and suggested that it should be given to the tribe, as Kemp and Warena had No. 11. The Court told us to try and settle the matter outside. Next morning the Muaupoko met. Hoani Puihi told me that several people wished the land awarded to them. I stood up and said I would not agree to Muaupoko having the land, as it was mine." It belonged to me and my hapu, the Ngatipariri, only. Ihaia Taueki asked me for it, and I gave it to him for himself absolutely and entirely. Kemp expressed his approval of what I had done. When the Commission was sitting I told McDonald and Stevens not to put in a list of my people for No. 12, because I had given it to Ihaia. I consider my father recovered this land for the people by burning Te Whatanui's houses. To Hamuera Karaitiana: No. 6 was set apart for those of Muaupoko who were omitted from the original title, and for the children born before 1873. I think McDonald explained this at the time. A list of names was prepared, but Kemp did not put it into Court because some of the names were disputed. Ihaia Taueki has never occupied No. 12. He has always lived on No. 11. McDonald explained the law to Muaupoko in 1886. I did not tell them that all their kaingas and cultivations were going to Kemp and Warena. It was unnecessary, because they knew it. The Court told them. There was nothing said about a trust. I have not heard of any other tribes giving up their possessions to others. I knew what the effect of a subdivision of 1886 was, but I have not turned the people off the land. Their stock are running on Warena's land. To Henare te Apatari: Peeti te Aweawe assisted my father in protecting this land from Ngatiraukawa. To Mr. McDonald : I hope the Court will determine the interests of persons entitled to these three blocks, and locate them also. I acted for my brother Warena in 1886. It was never in my mind to turn any one off the land who had a right to it after Warena got a legal title to the land. I state positively that Kemp did not give No. 12 to Ihaia—l gave it to him. To Sir W. Buller : Neither Warena nor I ever intended to turn any one off No. 11. We could have done so by law. I was present when Warena gave evidence in the Court of 1891. [Vol. xiv., pages 95, 96, Warena's evidence, " Have Muaupoko, since 1886, asked you to return them their land," &c, down to "rights in this block," read.] I remember Warena giving that evidence. I approve it. Fraser was trying to lead him into a trap. Warena was wrong in saying that according to Maori custom the Ngatipariri had no right. I repeat that I gave No. 12 to Ihaia Taueki for himself. It belonged to me and my hapu (Ngatipariri) absolutely. If a chief made a present of land to another chief the gift was valid. If I had chosen to have given No. 11 to Ihaia Taueki I could have done so in the same manner that I did with No. 12. My gift would have been valid. I included No. 12 in my application so that it might be ascertained why the expenses of the Commission were charged against it. I do not ask to participate in No. 12. If the Court decides that is Ihaia's I will not complain. To Assessor ; A chief would not take advantage of his position as sole legal owner to defraud his people of their rights. The Court announced that sufficient evidence had been elicited on the question of trust in Nos. 6, 11, and 12. The Court adjourned till the 3rd May.

Levin, Monday, 3ed May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. HOEOWHENUA No. 11. The Court stated that it proposed to deal first with the question of relative interests in No. 11,

29

&.—2a

Sir W. Buller asked the Court if the portion between Baumatangi Block and Hokio Stream would be included in the inquiry. The Court said it could not include that portion, as it had been appropriated by Parliament. The Court notified that it proposed to proceed under the application of Major Kemp, No. 4 on the panui. Sir W. Buller said he appeared on behalf of Kemp and family. Mr. Fraser said he appeared on behalf of Bangimairehau and others whose names were before the Court, also for Kingi Puihi. Hamuera Karaitiana said he appeared for the same persons he appeared for in the other cases. Henare te Apatari said he appeared for his former clients and Hoani Meihana. (Latter name withdrawn.) Mr. McDonald said he appeared for Himiona Kowhai and the persons formerly represented by Mr. Stevens. Rawiri Rota said he appeared for the persons formerly represented by Colonel McDonnell. Mr. Knocks said he appeared for Manihera te Bau and others. The Court: The nature of the application before the Court is to the following effect: " We, the undersigned members of the Muaupoko Tribe, in pursuance of the provisions of ' The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896,' do hereby make application to the Native Appellate Court, as defined by 1 The Native Land Court Act, 1894,' being the Court referred to in the said first-mentioned Act, and pray that the said Court, after hearing such evidence as may be adduced, will make all necessary orders for insuring the issue to us of Land Transfer certificates of title for the above-named Subdivision 11 of the Horowhenua Block (containing 15,000 acres, more or less), as the same is more particularly described in the First Schedule to the said Act, or for such parts thereof respectively as we may severally be found entitled to." The Court said this would be a convenient time to deal with the persons who were unrepresented. They had all received sufficient notice of the proceedings. Mr. McDonald suggested that each of the conductors should hand in lists of those they admit and those they object to. Sir W. Buller and Mr. J. M. Fraser objected. The Court intimated that it intended to adopt the original list of owners as the list of names. What it wanted to do now was to get rid of those who may have no right at all. It would read out the list of names of those who were unrepresented, as some of those might be represented now. [Names read out, as on page 253.] Karena Taiawhio : Not represented. Buahoata: Not represented. The Court suggested that Karena should choose some one to represent his children.—Karena agreed. Hakihaki te Wunu : Eepresented by Mr. Knocks. Aperahama Bangiwetia : To go with Karena's party. Te Miha-o-te-Bangi: Still unrepresented. Te Whatahoro : Still unrepresented. Hoani Meihana : Still unrepresented. Mihi te Bina, Kawana, and Bangipo Hoani: Still unrepresented. Mr. McDonald said he would do what he could to bring before the Court evidence regarding the rights of the above, although he had no instructions to represent them. Turuki (dead), Taimona te Ahuru, successor : Still unrepresented. Bawinia Matao appeared, and said that Mr. J. M. Fraser acted for her. Ema te Whango (dead) : Successors represented by Mr. Fraser. Boreta Tawhai (dead): Successor represented by Mr. Fraser. Maata te Whango : Now represented by Mr. Fraser. Mere Karena te Mana : To go with Karena's party. Bora Tohu and Merehira Waipapa : Now represented by Sir W. Buller. Bia te Baekokiritia : Still unrepresented; will attend on behalf of herself and Turuki. Hare Bota (dead) : Still unrepresented. Said to be Moriori. Herariki Kawana Hunia : Not directly represented. Ngahuia Tirai: Still unrepresented. Matina Tamaiwhakakitea : Now represented by Hamuera Karaitiana. Wi Waaka, Ani Marakaia, Miriania Piripi, Marakaia Tawaroa, Metiria Karaitiana, Harata te Koete : Now represented by Hamuera Karaitiana. Karaitiana Korou : Now represented by Hamuera Karaitiana. Bawea Taraua: To go with Bangipo Hoani and Mihi te Bina. Mr. Fraser suggested that agents and counsel might meet and agree as to which of the registered owners they all admitted and which of them they objected to. The Court agreed, and said it would adjourn till to-morrow. The Court adjourned till the 4th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 4th May, 1897.. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. The Court gave the following decision in respect of the existence of a trust in the aforesaid parcel of land: In the matter of section 4 of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," and in the matter of Subdivision No. 11 of the Horowhenua Block, and of the application of Baraku Hunia and

G-.—2a

30

others, claiming to be beneficially entitled to the aforesaid parcel of land, upon hearing the evidence of Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others as to the existence of a trust, and upon reading the evidence given by John Alexander Wilson and others before the Supreme Court at Wanganui in 1894, and the Boyal Commission in 1896, and the Native Appellate Court, and the evidence given before the Native Land Court in 1890 and 1891, and upon hearing the evidence of Wirihana Hunia in opposition thereto, this Court is of opinion that it is warranted, all circumstances considered, in coming to the conclusion that, although the Land Transfer certificate (vol. 29a, folio 130), clothes Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui and Warena Hunia te Hakeke with the legal estate, that these persons are only entitled to a beneficial ownership in common with others, and this Court doth adjudge and declare that a trust does exist in respect of the aforesaid Subdivision No. 11 in favour of such persons whose names are included in the Second and Sixth Schedules to "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," who can satisfactorily establish that they are beneficially entitled. Karena-te-mana-o-tawhaki said that the reason the name of Aperahama Tipae was included among the registered owners of Horowhenua was that the Ngatiapa assisted the Muaupoko against the Ngatiraukawa. Kemp and Kawana Hunia put Aperahama's name in in recognition of his services, and now Kemp denies that he has any right. Therefore I ask the Court to strike Aperahama's name out of the list, and return whatever right he has to Kemp and Wirihana. As to my children, lam a Ngatiapa, so are they; and I ask the Court to strike their names out of the list also, notwithstanding that my children are partially Muaupoko. I will not make any claim on their behalf. Let Muaupoko do as they please with them, lest it should be said that I came after their land. I place my wife's rights also in the hands of Muaupoko. They can consider her. If her relatives deny her rights I have nothing to say, but I withdraw the claims of Aperahama Bangiwetea, alias Tipae, and my children. j I Taueki Amuka i I | Te Matenga Tinotabi Karoro Ope Pirau | I I I 'I Kaewa Tatai Mata Tanana Am Patene ill Kawana Hunia Mere Karena Ripeka Nireaha I Wirihana and others Wirihana Hunia said there was no possible reply to what Karena had said, and asked the Court to leave Aperahama Tipae in his hands. The Court announced that it was prepared to go on with determination of relative interests. Sir W. Buller said he and Mr. Fraser were prepared to hand in lists of names of those they admitted. Mr. J. M. Fraser said nothing had resulted from the adjournment yesterday. He had now grouped his clients in families, also some of those represented by Bawiri Bota and Hamuera, who were admitted by Kemp. He handed in the lists [marked "A"], also list of persons to whom his side objected [marked " B "]. Kemp was not a party to the objection in toto. Sir W. Buller handed in Kemp's list [marked " C "]. Kemp did not object to any one who had ahika. Mr. McDonald handed in a list of persons who his side alleged had exhausted their rights in Horowhenua, and had no right to No. 11 [marked " D "]; also list containing thirty-six names whose claims in No. 11 he did not dispute [marked " E "]; also list of sixty-nine persons whose claims in No. 11 will be disputed as to extent only [marked " F "]. These lists covered the 143 registered owners only. He had not had time to deal with the forty-eight persons. Hamuera Karaitiana handed in list of persons who he claimed had a right to be admitted into No. 11 [marked " G "]. Henare te Apatari handed in list of names of persons for whom he claimed rights in No. 11 [marked " H "]. Rawiri Rota handed in complete list of his clients [marked " I"]. Mr. Knocks handed in list of persons he represented [marked " J "]. All lists read out. Mr. J. M. Fraser said the persons in list A were not all ahika. Those who had no right by Occupation left themselves in the hands of the tribe. Henare te Apatari claimed that his clients had rights in No. 11. He did not dispute the rights of any of the registered owners. Rawiri Rota handed in lists of names of persons whose rights in No. 11 his clients admitted [marked " I No. 1 "]. Mr. McDonald applied for an adjournment till to-morrow, to give time to collate the lists submitted. Sir W. Buller would not oppose. Mr. J. M. Fraser had no objection to the adjournment. Henare te Apatari agreed. The Court said it had hoped to make some progress to-day, but as agents and counsel considered ftri adjournment necessary it would not object. The Court adjourned till the sth instant.

G.—2a.

31

Wednesday, sth May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4 : Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Rawiri Rota handed in supplementary list of persons represented by him [marked " I No. 2 "], also a list of names of persons he objected to [marked " I No. 3 "]. Hamuera Karaitiana handed in a list of names of persons objected to by his party [marked "GNo. 1"]. The Court asked Sir W. Buller to say to whom he objected. Sir W. Buller said Kemp took up a neutral position. He would not dispossess any one who could prove ahika to the satisfaction of the Court. Subject to that, he agreed with, and accepted, Mr. Fraser's lists. Lists collated yesterday afternoon read out, and objections made by agents and counsel noted. The Court said the case could now proceed. Sir W. Buller proposed to call Keepa te Bangihiwinui to open a prima facie case. Mr. McDonald objected, and asked the Court to hear the case on the application of Wirihana Hunia, as Kemp's application did not cover all the matters to be dealt with by the Court. The Court held that Kemp's application was sufficient. Sir W. Buller called Keepa te Bangihiwinui to state prima facie case. Keepa te Bangihiwinui sworn. Witness: The claim now before the Court was sent in by myself and others on behalf of my tribe. I was trustee for the whole block from 1873 to 1886. In 1886 No. 11 was awarded to Warena Hunia and myself. Warena was put in at my request, against the wish of the people. Finding that No. 11 vested in Warena and myself absolutely, I immediately took steps in the Supreme Court and before Parliament to get the tribe brought back on to the land. I was successful in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. I am aware that this Court has decided that Warena and I were put in No. 11 not as owners of it, but as trustees for ourselves and others. The judgment bears out my contention, and the tribe is back on the land. I mean the Muaupoko —those who are Muaupoko by ancestry and who have rights by occupation. Those who got into the title in 1873, and who have no rights by ancestry and occupation, should not be admitted into No. 11; they were provided for by the tribe in 1886. No. 11 is for all the Muaupoko who can prove occupation to the satisfaction of the Court. Ido not wish any member of the tribe excluded if he can prove occupation, whether he is friendly to me or not. I will give the Court all the assistance I can in ascertaining the rights of the people. I do not admit the rights of Kawana Hunia and his family, because they have no rights to this land by occupation. Hakeke did not occupy the land after he married Kaewa, nor have his descendants occupied. This is the ground of my objection to them. I admit the rights of descendants of Taueki represented by Baraku. They have good rights by ancestors and occupation. I admit the rights of Te Paki by one of his lines of descent; but as he has elected to claim from a line through which he has no right he must take the responsibility. Bihipeti Tamaki occupied this land through Tinotahi, but I do not admit her ancestral right. I ask the Court to inquire fully into the rights of all parties where there is any doubt as to those rights, either by ancestry or occupation. I also ask this Court, in addition to determining the relative interests of the persons interested, to put a stop to all contention by locating the interests. I will accept the finding of the Court without appeal. I claim this land by ancestry, continuous occupation, and conquest, chieftainship, and ringakaha. My ancestral claim is from— Te Eangiwetea I Tuakiteao = Te Mou ! Tireo Te Riunga (f.) Ruatapu Potangotango I have not given the genealogy of all the Muaupoko. I will leave others to do the rest. Bangimairehau can trace his own and others'. In Tireo's time the Ngaitaikaka, a hapu of Ngatikahungunu, came to take this land. They were received hospitably, but they commenced to interfere with the eel-pas. Potangotango discovered this, and quarrelled with them. Tireo attacked and killed them. This shows his ahika and his mana. A post Tireo put up is still to be seen. Tireo's descendants by his second wife are in Heretaunga. They conquered the people at Takapau. Tireo also put up a post at Baroa. Potangotango put up a post at Ihuraua. They both returned to Horowhenua. HamUa came to Papaitonga, and afterwards settled at Waikanae. My ancestors and elders have occupied this land permanently. Their permanent pa was Te Koropu, at Otaiwa, this side of Hokio. It was occupied by Tireo, Potangotango, Temou, and Buatapu, and after them by their descendants—Tanguru, Taueki, Te Atua, Tawhati-a-tai, and Tawhati-a-tumata. I have also occupied the land, and have been as brave as my ancestors in that I have rescued a part of the land. My claim from chieftainship conquest is shown by my having extended the boundaries of the land from Hokio to Waiwiri by my exertions in the Native Land Court. The Court pointed out that the cases might be taken in the order in which they were taken yesterday. Mr. J. M. Fraser said he did not rely altogether on the ease set up by Kemp. It would be necessary for him to trace from additional lines of ancestry. t ...;..' .. ...... '.-'-:

G.—2a

32

Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case. Bawinia Ihaia sworn. Witness : I live at Horowhenua. lam not one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. My name was omitted by mistake. lam in the rerewaho list. lam a descendant of Puakiteao, but I cannot trace my descent from that ancestor; but I can from Te Hukui:— ' Te Hukui (son of Te Koronga) = Pariri I | Tui = Hura te Papa Hineitohua I I Te Awhea Rangibikaka I I Tamati Maunu Kiore ! I I | Tiau Te Ra Hikurangi Hariata (98) | | Te Marika (108) Rawinia Ihaia Rawinia Ihaia Hema Henare Ruka Hanuhanu Hanita Henare There are other families of Muaupoko descended from Tui. I claim an interest in No. 11. My ancestors and parents occupied it. lam in occupation of it now. I claim entirely from ancestry and permanent occupation. I have no other rights to the land. My tupunas had apa at Waipata. It is still to be seen. They had another pa at Pukeiti. It is my desire that this Court should determine and locate our interest in this land. Mr. A. McDonald's Case. Mr. cDonald said he would call two witnesses. Wirihana Hunia sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I claim an interest in No. 11. I ground my claim upon ancestry, continuous occupation, conquest, ringakaha, and mana. I claim my ancestry from — Tupatunui Amarumoari I Rere Ao Tamakitehau I Taingaruru Whakarongotai I Ngataitoko ki Wairaka = Hikaotaota I Pariri = Te Hukui Hineitohua — Te Angiimua Rangibikaka = Te Waha Whitirea = Kahoro Mauruhau = Karoro Kaewa = Te Hakeke I Kawana Hunia ! Wirihana Hunia. Hukui had a right to this land, but his descendants have not such large rights to this land as the descendants of Pariri. Tupatunui was killed by Ngatiira near Pukerua, and his head was cut off and put on a stone; hence the name Muaupoko. The line I have given is my ancestral right. My ancestors from Pariri down occupied this land permanently. The descendants of Pariri still occupy it. Ihaka te Bangihouhia lived and died here. I was brought up at Horowhenua. Waipata and Pukeiti were the pas of my ancestors ; they are in Horowhenua Lake. My claim by conquest is the conquest by my ancestors of certain Muaupoko and Ngatiapa hapus who tried to take part of Horowhenua, part of No. 11. The hapus conquered were Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura and Ngatipouwhenua. Their chief was Ngamaihi. They were conquered by Bangihikaka. Te Piro, an ancestor of Baniera te Whata, went to get eels from the part occupied by Ngamaihi and his people, who threw his eel-pot away. Te Piro complained to Te Bangihikaka, who said, "Me te mea nei koe he tamariki, te patu ai koe i te ngarara. o uta ka patu ai i nga ika o te wai." Te Bangihikaka drove the hapus off the land. Some of their descendants are still living with Ngatiapa. My ringakaha is the bringing of other tribes to contest with Ngatiraukawa for this land. My ancestors did not leave the land; they remained on it when others left from fear of Bauparaha. This is my mana claim. Himiona Kowhai sworn. Witness : I am one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have a claim to No. 11 from ancestry, occupation, and permanent residence on the land. I was born at Horowhenua, and have always lived on the block. I claimjfrom—

33

G-.—2a

Pariri I Heneitohua Kopani I I Rangihikaka Maewa = Tairatu I I Kiore Kotuku I I Hinekimihia = Takiari = Te Rau Komakorau I I Hanita Kowhai Komakorau = Taiata Himiona Kowhai Iritana I Himiona I claim descent from Hukui, Pariri, and Puakiteao. I have four lines from Puakiteao. I claim No. 11 from Pariri. My ancestors and elders have lived permanently on this land. Their pas were Waipata, Pukeiti, Waikiekie, Te Boha-o-te-kawau. They were on islands in the lake. The cultivations were on the mainland. My father was killed in Titokowaru's war. He went from here to take part in the war. His body was brought back and buried here. The Court instructed the other conductors to be ready with their cases to-morrow. The Court adjourned till the 6th instant.

Levin, Thuesday, 6th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4 : Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Case of Hamuera Karaitiana. Bihipeti Nieeaha sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have a right to Horowhenua by ancestry, permanent occupation, and ringakaha. I derive my ancestral right from Pariri and Hamua. I can trace my descent from— Pariri = Te Hukui I I I Hineitohua Tui = Huratepapa I Te Awhea = Waikorokio I I I Tamati Maunu Hinerangi = Te Hatenga Mata = Hetariki Takapou Rihipeti I cannot trace my descent from Hamua, but I can from Kuramonehu, one of his descendants. [Gives genealogy : see extended whakapapa.] I prevented the Ngatiraukawa getting this land— that is, my ancestors, Warakihi and others, did. That is my ringakaha. Tamati Maunu, Paipai, Toheriri, and Takari assisted in withholding the land from Bauparaha. My ancestors and elders occupied permanently. Waipata and Pukeiti were their pas. They are islands in Horowhenua Lake. My ancestors and elders never left this land. I lived on it till I was married. Himiona Kowhai on former oath. Witness: I know Te Paki. He is one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. He has claims to it by ancestry from Pariri. He relies upon his rights from Pariri, and does not claim from Puakiteao. Te Paki has rights by permanent occupation. My mother, who is half-sister, kept his occupatory rights alive. He assisted in preventing the Ngatiraukawa getting possession of this land. Te Paki's ancestors had pas on this land with the other Ngatipariri—viz., Waipata and Pukeiti. Pene Tikara, Pero Tikara, and Hana Bata are in title for Horowhenua. I can trace their descent from — Pariri I Hineitohua Rangihikaka I Kiore L_ I I i Takiari Tiau Tangata Atura I I " Te Marika Kurikotuku I I | | (1) Pene Ngataahi Mereana (2) Hana (3) Pero I (i) Tiaki These descendants of Pariri occupied the same pas. They lived permanently on the land.

5—G. 2a.

G.—2a

34

Case of Mr. A. Knocks. Buml Wuunu sworn. Witness : lam a daughter of Mere Mionga. I am one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have rights to the land from my ancestors and my mother. I derive my ancestral rights from Tawhiti-a-tumata and Te Bangihiwinui. I have rights by mana, chieftainship, and ringakaha. [Gives genealogy.] My mother was born and grew up at Horowhenua. My ancestors assisted to resist Te Bauparaha. They remained permanently on the land. I mean Tawhati, Bangihiwinui, Tanguru, and others. My ancestors lived permanently at Horowhenua. My mother lived there until Bangihiwinui took her to Foxton. i She went from there to Bangitikei. Te Bangihiwinui returned to Horowhenua, and died on the land. Mere Mionga was Tawhati's first child. After her mother died Tawhati married the mother of Makere te Bou. Tawhati's first wife, Mango, was his rangatira wife. All those joined with me have the same rights as myself except Manihera te Bau. Wieihana Hunia on former oath. Witness : I know Manihera te Bau. He married Pirihira Arahura, sister of Himiona te Hopu. He is one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. He has no right to Horowhenua so far as I know. He is a Ngatiraukawa. Ngatima is his hapu. His wife is a Muaupoko woman of rank. She married a relative of Manihera's first, who died ; Manihera then took her. Pirihira was taken prisoner by Te Whatanui at Karekare, Manawatu. Peace was made there between Te Whatanui, Te Hakeke, and others, and Pirihira was taken to wife by Pita te Pukeroa, brother of Te Manihera. Manihera te Bou and Pirihira lived permanently at Horowhenua. Pirihira Arahura was a descendant of Te Bongopatahi, elder sister of Pariri. Manihera te Bau has lived permanently at Horowhenua ever since I can remember. The Muaupoko gave Manihera a share in No. 3, 105 acres. He was a close ally of Kawana Hunia during the troubles between Ngatiraukawa and Muaupoko. Case of Henare te Apatari. Te Bewanui Apataei sworn. Witness : lam a Bangitane and Muaupoko. Ngaiteao is my Muaupoko hapu. I speak on behalf of my uncle, Peeti te Aweawe, Meretini, and Ani Tihore. Meretene, Peeti te Aweawe, and Ani Tihore are registered owners of Horowhenua. I have an ancestral right to this land. I have rights also by permanent occupation, toa, and mana rangatira. My ancestors and elders down to Peeti te Aweawe lived permanently on this land. I derive my ancestral right from Tamakore, a descendant of Kupe. [Gives genealogy.] My ancestor, Temou, lived on this land with Puakiteao. Their descendants also occupied it. Some of the descendants of Tireo occupied it; others did not. Te Buareinga and Te Bipi, two of the descendants of Tireo, did not occupy the land, so I have heard. Te Kapuwai's descendants have occupied permanently. Ani Tihore is buried on the land. On one occasion the Ngaitaikaka, a hapu of Ngatikahungunu, came to this district under Te Uamairangi. They lived at the mouth of the Hokio Stream. My ancestors found that they intended to take possession of the land, and that they were stealing eels from the eel-pas. Tireo, Potangotango, and others attacked and killed some of them. Te Uamairangi and the other survivors fled. Tireo then put in a post, he and his younger brothers, at Buamatangi. It was a rahui, to prevent strangers catching eels. When Mahuri was murdered the whole of Bangitane and Muaupoko were under his mana, and went with him to the place where he was murdered. Many of them were killed also. Te Aweawe put in a post at Ngatokorua, to prevent encroachment by Ngatihuias. These are my take mana. Case of Rawiri Rota. Te Baeaku Hunia sworn. Witness: I reside at Horowhenua. lam not one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I am in the rerewaho list. Hereora was my mother. She was one of the registered owners. Her interest in No. 3 has been awarded to me and some of her other children. Ihaia Taueki was included with us in the order. I know the block now before the Court, No. 11. lam living on it. I have claims to a part of it—to the portion north of the Hokio Stream. The portion south of that stream was given by my ancestor Taueki to Te Whatanui, after Muaupoko were defeated at Karekare and fled to Horowhenua. My ancestor Taueki held the land against Te Bauparaha when others fled. He gave the land to Te Whatanui when they made peace. Taueki kept the land north of the stream for himself and. those with him. I can give the boundaries. They commence at Te Uamairangi; thence to Buamatangi; from thence between Titirangi and Te Makomako ; from thence to Taumata Kiekie ; thence to Te Arapaepae o Hoututerangi; thence to Tararua Bange, at Ngapuketurua; following that range for some distance to Matapihi; then turning westward to Kopuapangopango, and on to the sea;' and following the coast to the commencing-point. My ancestor kept the land comprised within these boundaries for himself and those under him when he made peace with Te Whatanui. I claim a right to this land by ancestry, permanent occupation, ringakaha, mana rangatira, and the making of peace, which completes my rights. My ancestral claim is from— Puakiteao=Te Mou I Potangotango=Tokai I Tapuwae—Kuraituhi I Taueki-=Kahukore _, I I I Ihaia Taueki Hereora Tiripa and others Raraku and others

35

G.—2a

All my ancestors occupied Horowhenua permanently. So did my elders. I have lived permanently on the land. My ancestors had pas on the land—viz., Te Mangaroa, Pukearuhe, Karapu, Te Koropu, Hokiopuni. These were kaingas and fighting-pas as well. Te Waikiekie, Te Boha-a-te-kawau, Te Namuiti, Waipata, and Pukeiti were later pas, established on islands in the lake in the time of the descendants of Te Buatapu and others. I will now refer to my ringakaha. Potangotango and Tireo held the land against Ngaitaikaka, a hapu of Ngatikahungunu under Te Uamairangi, who came to take it. They stayed at Te Beti and the mouth of Hokio. Tireo came from Te Punanga (Kawiu), and found Potangotango quarrelling with his relatives, the children of Buatapu, because there were no eels in the pas. Tireo told Potangotango that he should kill the vermin on the land before he killed the eels in the stream. They then attacked Ngaitaikaka, and defeated them. Te Uamairangi escaped, and returned to Ngatikahungunu. Tireo and Potangotango then put up a rahui to prevent outsiders fishing. I am a rangatira by birth. My ancestor Taueki having made peace with Whatanui is my mana rangatira. The Court: That finishes the statement of claims. It is for Bawiri to go on with his case. The others will follow in the following order : Henare te Apatari, Mr. Knocks, Hamuera Karaitiana, Mr. McDonald, Mr. J. M. Fraser, Sir W. Buller. Mr. McDonald urged that he should come after Mr. Fraser, as he had not stated his case fully. Mr. J. M. Fraser said his cross-examination of Mi. McDonald's witnesses would fully disclose his case. Mr. McDonald asked to be allowed to call rebutting evidence if the cases were to be taken in the present order. The Court said it would allow Mr. McDonald to call rebutting evidence if it considered such evidence necessary. Rawiri Rota called Te Baraku Hunia. Baeaku Hunia on former oath. Witness : I will first speak about the coming of Bauparaha to the district, and his having conquered the people. The Court suggested that the witness should give evidence as to her own rights to the land. Witness : Te Uira was the first of our ancestors to occupy this land. He married Te Wairotoariki, but I cannot give my genealogy from them. I will commence with Puakiteao and Temou. They lived permanently on this land, as their ancestors had before them. There was no fighting in their day. Te Baumatangi: An eel-pa in Hokio Stream; it belonged to Potangotango. I have seen his descendants working there. It is included in the gift by Taueki to Whatanui. Tarawhakamate : Another eel-pa in Hokio Stream ; worked by descendants of Potangotango, Puakiteao, and Temou. Tuturi: Eel-pa in Hokio Stream; it belonged to Potangotango; his descendants make use of it now. Pukaahu: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; used by descendants of Puakiteao and Temou. Te Maori: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; worked by Noa te Whata up to time of his death; he was a descendant of Te Biunga, who formerly owned it. Te Buatanewha: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; used by the descendants of Buatapu—Himiona Kowhai and Hema Henare. Pukaahu-a-tu: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream ; used by the descendants of Tireo—Wirihana Tarewa and others. Te Ara Mianga : Eel-pa, Hokio Stream ; used by descendants of Potangotango—Makere te Bou and family, who have recently given Karaitiana Tarawahi permission to catch eels there. Tauanui: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; used by descendants of Potangotango and Puakiteao—Makere te Bou, Ihaia Taueki, and ourselves. Ngatipariri have no eel-pas in the Hokio Stream; they all belong to the descendants of Potangotango, Te Biunga, Puakiteao, and Temou. There is another eel-pa near the mouth of Hokio Stream, worked by the descendants of Te Biunga. Bingawhati : Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; used by descendants of Potangotango until lately; not worked now. Otawa: Eel-pa, Hokio Stream; worked by descendants of Puateao and Potangotango. The Ngatipariri have no eel-pas here, nor have they any rights to the land. Pariri is an ancestor of mine, but I will not speak falsely about him. When his descendants want eels they have to ask us for them. They approach us through Himiona, who is connected with both sides. Mounuwahine: Name of a piece of bush where Potangotango snared birds. Oero: Another bird-snaring place near here ; Potangotango caught birds there. Oero is the name of a stream or blind creek. Te Patiki: A birdsnaring place; a small stream falling into Horowhenua Lake; Potangotango caught birds there. Taura-Tukutuku : A rat-catching place. Te Bimu is the name of the road used by Potangotango in going to his bird- and rat-catching places. He landed at a place on the lake known as Ti when he went to Weraroa to catch birds. Te Karaka-a-te-aitu was a bird-snaring tree used by the descendants of Potangotango and Te Biunga, near where the railway-station is now. There were many other bird- and rat-catching places on the land belonging to my ancestors, but I do not know their names. Te Kapa was a clearing on bank of Horowhenua Lake. It was a kainga of Potangotango near Te Kawiu. Potangotango had a house there, which he occupied when hunting. The Court adjourned till the 7th instant.

Levin, Feiday, 7th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested.

Q.—2&

36

Case of Rawiri Rota —continued. Baeaku Hunia's examination in chief continued. Witness : I do not understand maps sufficiently to point out the positions of places I have mentioned. My brother can do it. Te Koropu was Potangotango's permanent kainga; he was born there. Tireo te Biunga, Te Buatapu, and Te Koa were all born at Te Koropu. It is near the Hokio Stream, and on the banks of the Horowhenua Lake. This family dug fern-root at Weraroa, near where the gravel-pit now is; they also collected tutu there. Te Mai: Fern-root ground between Te Mai and Te Kope ; used by my ancestors and elders. I have dug fern-root there. Te Biunga's pa was at Papaitonga. She went there to live. That place belongs to her descendants now." I cannot trace them now. Kemp is one of them. Te Biunga's brothers assisted her when she was attacked, and she and her people aided them when they needed help. Tokouru, of Ngatikahungunu, and his people came to Papaitonga to take the land from Biunga. Her brothers went there and attacked them. They dragged their canoes overland to Papaitonga; when they reached there they attacked Tokouru and people. Te Biunga was angry, and sheltered some of them in a house, and the attack was called "Te Wharetutaki." Te Angiimua, a younger relative of Tokouru, was spared with others. Her descendants intermarried with those of Te Biunga. Whiterea, daughter of Te Bangihikaka, married Kahoro, who was killed by Ngatikahungunu. They also drove his people away. The killing of Kahoro was avenged by Ngatiapa and other West Coast tribes, but I cannot give particulars; Kemp will. After the attack at Papaitonga Tokouru fled southward with the survivors of his party. They were again attacked and defeated at Te Pitopito-o-pitorea, somewhere near Waikanae. Some of the Muaupoko were living at Waikanae at that time—-the descendants of Tamairangi and others. These were the people who occupied Porirua, the land round Wellington Harbour, and the southern coast of this Island. It was owing to the intermarriages I have spoken of that the Ngatipariri were allowed to live on this land with us. Hinearoariki was a Hamua woman. Bangitane brought her here as a slave, and became the progenitor of some of the people who live here. She had no right here. Hikaotaota married Ngataitoko: she was a Hamua, and came here as a slave. She lived south of this, at Waitawa—not on this land. Ngataitoko had pas also at Waikanae and Pukerua. He and Hikaotaota never lived at Horowhenua. Tupatunui came from Taikoria, north of Manawatu; that was his kainga ; but he fled south through fear of Ngatiapa, and took up his abode at Paikakariki. He was killed there, as related by Wirihana. All Muaupoko have joined now. Wirihana claims from Pariri because he wants to take all the land and keep us out. Kawainga, Bongopataki, and Pariri are not descendants of Puakiteao, but their descendants have become mingled with those of Puakiteao by intermarriages. Their kaingas were south of this place until the intermarriages took place. They were driven northwards to Horowhenua by Bauparaha. In Taueki's, Kahukore's, and Tapuwae's time Tukorehu, with his war-party of Ngatiwhatua, came by way of Wairarapa to this district, and attacked the Muaupoko at Te Koropu. My ancestors were at Te Namuiti, where they had gone for safety. The Ngatiwhatua followed them there. Ngatihine, Ngaiteao, Ngaitamarangi, and Ngatipuri were the hapus in the pa. They were all Muaupoko. The descendants of Te Biunga were there also. The Muaupoko left the pa and attacked Tuwhare. Many of the Muaupoko were taken by the enemy. The women left in the pa embarked in canoes in the evening, and the enemy, thinking that Muaupoko were being reinforced, fled away, leaving their prisoners. Tapuwae, father of Taueki, was killed. He is buried on the land ; my ancestors—Kahukore and Taueki—also. When Bauparaha came to this district he attacked Muaupoko, and most of the people fled to Arapaoa and other places; some were taken prisoners. After this Te Whatanui arrived, and he and my ancestor Taueki made peace and lived together amicably. When the people heard of it they returned to the land. Bauparaha never interfered between Whatanui and Taueki after they had made peace. The people who were with Taueki when peace was made are all included in my list of names : Tawhati-a-tai, Te Atua, Tomo, Mahanga, Te Maro, Wi Perahama, Matene Pakauwera, Pirihira Hautapu, Te Bau, Motai Taueki, Haerepo, Te Waitere Kakiwa, Tawhati a Tumata, Pitawai, Te Baorao, Te Aweawe, Wereta, Himiona Taiweherua, Pirihira te Arahura, Tohu (father of Te Hapimana), and Tanguru, Tori, and Tarawahi. I cannot recollect any others who were with Taueki when he made peace. Ihaka te Bangihouhia was not taken prisoner, but he followed Kaewa to Bangitikei when she married Te Hakeke. He was one of those who were driven here by Te Bauparaha. He did not live here permanently; died at Bangitikei. I object to some of the descendants of Buatapu because they ran away and left me to defend the land. Kotuku suggested to Taueki that they should go to Arapaoa when Bauparaha invaded this district, but Taueki declined. He remained here, and Kotuku went to the South Island with others of the Muaupoko. Taueki said he would take shelter among the ratatrees on his own land, and he did so until Whatanui came, and they made peace. Then the others came back and claimed a share in the land that my ancestor had held against his enemies. It is to the descendants of those that I object. I have nothing to say about the land south of that given by Taueki to Te Whatanui. Pakauhokio, Ohita, Ngararanui are eel-swamps ; they belonged to our ancestors. Ngatipariri never went to catch eels there. Ngakawau is another small lake, where eels were placed by my ancestors to fatten. There are many others, but I forget their names. Mairua and Opai are cultivations; they belonged to my ancestors, and are used by us now. We have cultivations also at Te Kawiu. We run stock all over the land. None of the Ngatipariri do. Pene Tikara is the only Ngatipariri who does, and he married a daughter of Te Wirihana Tarewa. The fruit-trees growing at Te Kawiu and Te Eimu belong to the descendants of Puakiteao and Temou. Fruit-trees at Hopuhopu belong to Te Baorao, a descendant of Potangotango. Cherry-orchard above Te Bimu belongs to Tomo and Tawhati. No pure Ngatipariri have any cultivations or stock on this land ; nor have Bihipeti or Te Paki. Fruit-trees at Te Puapua belong to Himiona Taiweherua. The karaka-trees growing along the banks of Hokio Stream belong to Tomo and

37

Gh—2a

others, Mahanga, Te Kiri, Taueki, Makere, Hanita Kowhai. They are old trees ;we use them now. Tamati Maunu never lived here till he married Te Ban. He was a Ngatiapa and Ngatipariri. His children are in the Waipu Block, at Whangaehu. Te Matenga Tinotahi fled here from Waimapihi; he was wounded, and my ancestors protected him. He had no ancestral right to the land. He lived with Taueki for a time; not permanently. When this land was leased to Hector McDonald the rent was always taken to Ihaia Taueki to distribute to the people. The mana descended to him from his ancestors, and was always recognised. The land leased to McDonald was the part kept by Ihaia for himself and those under him. It was from aroha that he shared the rent with others. It was always paid to those who had the same ancestral rights as himself, not to any others. In 1886, when the land was divided, the northern part of it was awarded to Puakiteao and other Muaupoko. Wirihana Hunia was the only Ngatipariri admitted there. It was a mistake. All the other Ngatipariri were located on the southern portion of the block, which had been given by Taueki to Whatanui. They had no right there even; but Kemp got it back in 1873 from the Ngatiraukawa, and put the names of Ngatipariri in the title. Te Hiha, Paringatai, and Kupe are all cultivations of ours. Te Wai-o-miriorangi is another. All the descendants of Puakiteao and Potangotango work these cultivations. Ohenga and Komakorau were the burial-grounds of my ancestors. The chiefs were put in caves at Kapiti. Wharekohu and Tutiramoana were the names of the caverns. They were named after ancestors of Puakiteao and Potangotango. Te Kawe bush, on the bank of the lake, was named after a son of Potangotango. Akuira Takapo, brother of Bihipeti: He has no right here. He was in Bangitikei when peace was made. Came here with his parents afterwards. He is partly a Ngatirangi, whose rights were at Pukerua, and partly a Ngatipariri or Hamua. Ngatipariri is a new name. He never occupied Horowhenua. Ani Marakaia is a Ngatikahungunu; she has no right here; has never lived on the land. Ani Kanara Tihore was not here when peace was made; that is my objection to her; she came here after the troubles were over, and died here. Aperahama Bangiwetea is a Ngatiapa; no right; never lived at Horowhenua. Hamuera Potau, also a Ngatiapa ; not descended from my ancestors ; never lived at Hortwhenua; died at Heretaunga. Harata te Koete, a Ngatikahungunu, never lived on the land; no right by ancestry. Harirota, a Moriori from the Chatham Islands ; she returned there after Te Herewini died ; no right to Horowhenua. Te Maro, sister of Taueki, brought Harirota back from the South Island. Hehe Whakaka was not here when peace was made ; he is a Ngatiapa and Ngaitahu ; no right; never lived here. Henare Mahuika was a descendant of Te Biunga, but his parents went away to Arapaoa and never returned ; I have never seen him ; I object to him because he deserted the land. Hetariki Takapo I have the same objection to as I have to Akuira; he is a Hamua; has no right here; he lived here after peace was made, because he married the daughter of Tamate Maunu. Hoani Meihana Ido not object to, but I understand that he does not claim in No. 11, and I suppose he wishes to leave No. 11 for the residents. Hoani Meihana has never lived at Horowhenua, but he did not run away like some of Muaupoko. Hori te Mawae was a Whanganui; he has no right whatever to Horowhenua; he never lived here ; I suppose he was put in the title because of his connection with Kemp. Hori Muruahi is a descendant of Potangotango, but he went away, or, rather, his father did, and never returned. Hori may have returned here in 1873— lam not sure. Waata Muruahi was here in 1873. Te Hutana Whakaka, brother of Hehe Whakaka: I have the same objection to him. Irihapeti Ihaia, a Hamua: She has no ancestral right; has never lived at Horowhenua. Karaitiana Korou, brother of Irihapeti, has never lived at Horowhenua. Matenga Tinotahi: No right from my ancestors; lived on the land after my ancestor had made peace ; he was a Ngatirangi; has no right. Manihera te Bau, a Ngatiraukawa : He lived permanently at Horowhenua after he married Pirihira; has only lately gone to live at Otaki; I leave him in the hands of the Court. Matiaha Mokai, a Hamua :He has no right to this land; has never occupied; he was one of the mediators in 1873; he did not set up any claim to the land. Te Miha-o-te-rangi has an ancestral right, but no occupation. Marakaia Tawaroa, a Hamua: No right; never occupied. Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, a Hamua :No right; never occupied. Matiria Karaitiana has no right of ancestry, but Ihaia Taueki put her in out of friendship for Wiremu Kingi; I think she is entitled to something; let her be left to me. Miriama Piripi has no right whatever to the land; has never lived on it. Maaka Ngorongoro, a Hamua, has no right; never lived here. Mananui Tawhai has an ancestral right from Hauiti, but has no occupation until after peace was made; he was born at Bangitikei; I leave it to the Court to say whether he has any right, and to what extent. Mihi te Bina Kawana has no right from my ancestors; she is a Ngatipariri; has never lived at Horowhenua, nor did her god-mother, Kaewa, or her father, Kawana; I am the only descendant of Kaewa who has occupied permanently. Mereana Matao has no right; did not occupy till peace was made; daughter of Tamati Maunu; she is a pure Ngatipariri. Mere Mionga, a descendant of Tawhati-a-Tumata : She was taken prisoner by Ngatikahungunu ; never returned, nor have her descendants ; she has no right. Maata te Whango: In the same position as her brother, Te Mananui Tawhai; has occupied, but not constantly ; she is always moving about. Mere Karena te Mana has no right; she is a Ngatirangi; her mother lived at Maramaihoea with a European; Mere Karena has never lived on this land. Merehira Waipapa, a Ngatirangi, never lived on this land; has no right; a slave of Ngatiapa. Noa te Whata I object to because he ran away to Arapaoa ; he has a good ancestral right, but is a deserter; if he had been a European soldier he would have been shot; he returned to the land after all the troubles were over. Ngahuia Tirae: Ancestral rights good, but she went away about time of Karekare; never returned; I have never seen her. Paki te Hunga, a descendant of Puakiteao: My objection to him is that he is claiming from an ancestor whose rights I deny ; another objection is that his parents ran away to Arapaoa; Makere brought him. back quite recently; he has occupied, but not constantly. Pene Tikara: His mother never lived on this land; her children were all born away from here—at Dunedin, Wairau, and other places; I think Hanita Kowhai brought Pene back on to the land after peace was made; his ancestors did not occupy—they lived with Ngatipariri. Pero Tikara, brother of Pene ;

GK—2a

38

He was also brought back on to the land by Hanita Kowhai; Muaupoko turned him away again because he interfered with their women ; he returned about three years ago. Petera te Ha has no right from my ancestors; Ido not know his hapu; he lived at Horowhenua. Porana Muruahi: Same position as Hori Muruahi; I leave him to the Court; I have never seen him on the land. Pirihira te Whata has an ancestral right; I object to her because she deserted the land with her husband, Noa te Whata, in the time of trouble. Te Eangirurupuni has no right; descended from Te Ngarue ; lived on southern portion of Muaupoko territory permanently until Ihaia Taueki. married his daughter; he then lived at Horowhenua. Eaneira te Whata: Same objection as to Noa. Biwai te Amo, I think, is a Ngatipariri, but lam not sure ; I remember now he is a descendant of my ancestors, and has good rights to Horowhenua. Eangipo Hoani, son of Te Eina :No right. Euahoata, child of Mere Karena :No right; a Ngatiapa and Ngatirangi. Eihari Tarakihi, a Hamua or Whatuiapiti: No right; lived on the land after he married Ema te Whango, but not constantly. Te Eangimairehau : Taken prisoner by Te Eauparaha at Te Puoho ; did not return till he married Makere ; he is her third husband ; he has good ancestral rights. Eatima Potau, a Ngatiapa and Ngatikahungunu :No right; never lived on the land. Eihipeti Tamaki: Same position as Te Matenga; I have never seen her living on this land, and I have been on the land twenty-five years ; when these people hear that there is any money coming from Horowhenua they soon appear. Eawinia Matao, a Ngatipariri: No right; has occupied since peace was made. Eoreta Tawhai: Same position as Mananui Tawhai; she is buried on the land. Buihi Wuna: Same position as Mere Mionga. Eakera Potaka: Same position as Te Eina, a Ngatipariri; no right. Tamate Maunu : Never lived here till he married Te Eau ; he was a Ngatiapa and Ngatipariri; his children are in the Waipu Block, at Whangaehu. Tahana Muruahi: Same position as Hori and Te Porana. Tamate Muruahi: The same. Tiaki Tikara : Same as Perie and Pero. Te Oti-te-hou : Has never lived here ; I think he has ancestral rights, but none by occupation. Tarn ati Taopuku has no ancestral rights; he was a Ngatiapa ; died here. Topi Kotuku Ido not know about; I think he was a descendant of Tireo. Turuki I cannot give any information about. Wirihana Paeroa has no right; he is a Ngatipariri. Warenate Hakeke : Same as Wirihana. Waata Murahi: Same position ; same as Hori and Porana Muruahi. Watarawi te Hau has ancestral rights, but has not occupied the land. Te Whatahoro, a Ngatikahungunu, but I believe he is also a descendant of Tireo ; he has never occupied the land. Wi Waaka, a Hamua, has no right by ancestry or occupation. Amorangi Eihara has ancestral rights ;no occupation until after Christianity ; father was a Ngatimaniapoto. Ani Patene has no right; has occupied—at least, her elders did—after they were chased here. Hana Eata : Same position as Pene and Pero Tikara; no right. Hetariki Matao :No right by ancestry ; has occupied. Meihana Tupou has an ancestral right, but Tupou ran away to Arapaoa. Meihana returned after Christianity was introduced. Mere Nireaha : Same position as Eihipeti Nireaha. Nati Amorangi: Ancestral rights, but parents ran away to Arapaoa, and did not return until peace was made. Ngahuia Bruera : Ancestral rights ; daughter of Paki; they are ignoring their proper rights. Oriwia Maiangi: Taken prisoner ; ancestral rights from Te Ngarue; did not come on the land till 1890. Pane Korama : No ancestral rights; has not lived on the land until within the last six years. Pere Korama :No ancestral rights ; has not lived at Horowhenua. Pirihira Nireaha : Same as Eihipeti; no ancestral rights. Eawea Taraua, child of Te Eina :No right. Eawinia Ihaia :No right from my ancestors ; lived on land. Eipeka Winara; Ancestral rights, but no occupation. Tuhi Hori: Ancestral rights good ; she is living on the land. The Court adjourned till the Bth instant.

Levin, Satueday, Bth May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Case of Rawiri Rota —continued. Baeaku Hunia's examination in chief continued. Witness : I wish to explain the origin of name " Muaupoko." It was taken from a lake and locality beyond Waikanae. When Ihaia married the daughter of Te Bangirurupuni, or shortly after Taueki died, Ihaia Taueki and Te Bangirurupuni then returned to Horowhenua, and the latter suggested that the people should take the name, and they did. They were previously known as Bangitane and Punahau; their principal name was Bangitane. Wirihana, the brother of Hunia, was brought here from Bangitikei; he was very ill, and died on the way. Hanita Kowhai fetched him from Bangitikei because Hunia was always quarrelling with him. His body was placed in Tanguru's house. He had not lived at Horowhenua. He married the daughter of Te Ahuru, of Ngatiapa, and lived with that tribe. He had no cultivations here. When Taueki died the Ngatiapa came to the tangihanga. Wirihana was brought here by them, and Hanita kept him as a tamaiti whangai ; not as a chief for Muaupoko —that is an invention of Wirihana's. When Wirihana was about twelve years of age he went back to Bangitikei. He has often said in Court that he was the chief of Ngatiapa, but that was when Ngatiapa lands were before the Court. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I have heard of a post called " Ngatokorua." Te Peeti te Aweawe spoke of it. Te Aweawe and Taueki erected it. It was to fix the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. I heard that Ani Kanara Tihore was taken at Waioru. Do not remember what year she came back.

G.—2a

39

I saw her living at Horowhenua. She married Te Oti Waahu, and lived at Waitahi with Kerihi and others, and cultivated with them. I have heard of Ngarangiwhakaota; he was the father of Meretene Whakaewa, and a chief of rank and prowess. Te Biunga lived at Papaitonga. Her descendants occupied it after her —those who did not run away with Te Kotuku. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I derive my right to this land from Puakiteao and Temou, the former owners of the land. They got their rights from their ancestors, who took possession of it. lam descended from— Rongopatahi Te Kahu I Te Kuraituhi = Tapuwae Taueki I Hereora I Raraku Hunia Te Bongopatahi had no rights to this land. I do not claim any right from that ancestor. His lands were at Paekakariki. None of the Hamua are connected with the Pariri except Bihipeti, who lives at Tamaki. Te Whatahoro is a descendant of Kawainga; I cannot trace his descent. Te Hikaotaota was taken prisoner at Wainui, in Wairarapa, and brought here by Te Uira, father of Temou, who was afterwards killed by the people he had saved. Takare, Toheriri, and Papai were descendants of Te Biunga ; they got their rangatiratanga from her, not from Pariri. Bihipeti has no rights to Horowhenua No. 11 by ancestry or occupation ; she has no house here. My mother gave me the information I possess of the history of Horowhenua ; I was grown up when she died. The land south of Taueki's boundary was for Te Whatanui. It was included in the award of 1873 to Muaupoko. You had better try and get your clients into that part. I have rights to the land between Hokio and the southern boundary of Horowhenua, because a great part of the land belonging to my ancestors was given to others in 1886. I had ancestral rights to it before it was given by Taueki to Whatanui. My ancestor Potangotango was an independent chief. Mounuwahine was a hunting- and fowling-place of his. Patiki and Oero were also bird-catching places of his. My mother told me this. Tamatea and others of Muaupoko know it. Noa te Whata told me the same. It was the custom of chiefs to hunt and fish. Pariri's pas were at Pukerua and Paekakariki ; his descendants have lived there. Some of the descendants of Pariri have occupied Horowhenua since peace was made between Taueki and Whatanui. Te Kahu, child of Bongopatahi, lived at Pukerua and Uruhi. Te Kuraituhi lived at Horowhenua after her marriage with Tapuwae. I have heard that Pariri had an umu tawa near Horowhenua Lake. Wirihana said so in one of the Courts. I repeat that the Ngatipariri have no right to any of the eel-pas in Hokio Stream. If they want eels they have to ask us for them. It was not so in the time of Potangotango. I am telling you what I have seen myself. It is only since peace was made that Ngatipariri have been here at all. Tireo and his brothers lived here permanently. Ido not know that any lands have been awarded to their descendants in Manawatu. I know that he made raids there. Bihipeti and her parents lived at Tamaki after peace was made. My mother told me so. Hinerangi lived at Turakina. - She was a Ngatiapa, and married a Ngatiapa. Her rights are there, but Ngatiapa did not put Bihipeti into their lands. Ido not know where Hinerangi died. Tamati Maunu is buried at Kouturoa. Ido not know where Bihipeti's mother is buried. Akuira Takapo died at Bangitikei; he is buried here. I admit Te Aweawe's right by ancestry, and because he assisted Taueki in holding the land. I was in Bangitikei in 1886. Wirihana left me there when he came to the Palmerston Court. If I had attended the Court Te Peeti would not have been put on the hills. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Te Uira and Wairotoariki were the first of our ancestors to occupy this land. Te Uira was murdered by his slaves, the descendants of Hikaotaota. This is what I heard. Ido not know their names. Wirihana mentioned them in the Court of 1890. Temou was an infant at the time. I heard this from Wirihana Hunia. Te Uira was buried at Horowhenua ;I do not know who buried him. I have heard from my mother that Temou died at Horowhenua, and was buried at Ohenga or Komakorau. Hikaotaota was brought to Te Uruhi and married Ngataitako there. That was his land. He was a descendant of Tupatunui. Puakiteao died a natural death at Te Koropu. I do not remember where she is buried. Hoani Puihi is a descendant of Puakiteao. [Vol. 13, page 242, Hone Puihi's evidence, read.] That is his version. I have given mine, which I consider more reliable. Ido not know where Tireo died, or how ; I think he died here. He put up a post here, and called it after Temou; it was to keep Ngatikahungunu away after he had driven them off the land. Ngaitaikaka was a hapu of Ngatiupokoiri. Ido not know whether the name is still used. It was Ngatikokopu who were attacked by Te Piro; he sent for his soldiers from Pukerua to assist him. Bangihikaka came, and together they defeated the Ngatikokopu. The cause of fight was that Ngatikokopu took Te Piro's match-wood. The Ngatikokopu were a hapu of Ngatiapa. Te Piro lived at Kouturoa. The Court adjourned till the 10th instant.

Gk—2a

40

Levin, Monday, 10th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Case of Rawiri Rota —continued. Baeaku Hunia's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Witness : Te Uira was murdered by descendants of Hikaotaota. I did not hear that Tupohonui, ancestor of Bihipete, saved the life of Temou. I have not heard that Tupohonui took the child away to its relatives at Tamaki, or that Temou never returned to Horowhenua; that is an invention of your side. Temou married Puakiteao at Horowhenua. [Vol. 14, pages 118 and 118, Kemp's evidence, read.] I have already told the Court that it was a family quarrel; the Ngatipariri did not take part in it. Potangotango was not stealing the eels; he did not go away afterwards except to fight his enemies, after which he returned to Horowhena; he did not remain at Pahiatua, although he put up a post there. Tapuwae did not live at Hotuiti; that is another invention of yours; he lived and died at Horowhenua ;he was killed at Horowhenua by Tukorehu's war-party. Tangaru was partly a Ngatiapa; that is why he went to Arapaoa sometimes. The Muaupoko and Wanganui Tribes were beaten at Waiorua. [Vol. 13, page 162, Kemp : " Ngatitoa did not fight against Muaupoko again," &c.] That is Kemp's story. lam telling my own. Ngatitoa and Ngatiawa did fight against Muaupoko after Waiorua. I have heard of the making of peace at Karekare, but it was broken afterwards by Ngatitoa. I have heard of the massacre at Waikanae. [Vol. 13, fol. 164, Kemp, read: " There were about four hundred Muaupoko went," &c] I heard that Te Whatanui tried to prevent them going; this was an indication of his good faith. The peace between Whatanui and Taueki was about Horowhenua, not Karekare. Ihaia Taueki was taken prisoner by Ngatituwharetoa, and his father fetched him back on to the land. Muaupoko did not prevent Hereora building a house near Kupe. It was a quarrel between Te Kiri and Hereora over their cultivations. Some time afterwards Hereora went away and died at Whangaehu. Hereora built her house, and I lived in it. She did not go to Whangaehu until I was grown up, and then because she disapproved of Kahukore marrying a Ngatihuia she took her away with her. I have built a house near Kupe since Hereora died. Muaupoko did not object to my building it, on the ground that Taueki had no land at Horowhenua except one small clearing. I do not know whether the boundary between Whatanui and Taueki followed the Hokio Stream. I do not know that Te Uamairangi came here on the invitation of Te Kotuku, or that Te Taumata-o-te-Uamairangi was called after him, because he was taken to the summit of the hill to see the South Island. That is another story. I have heard that Kahoro's death was fully avenged. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I am a chieftainess of Muaupoko. Makere te Bou has good claims to No. 11 from Potangotango, through Tawhati a Tumata, and also through her mother. She has the same rights as I have from ancestry and occupation. Mere Mionga has an ancestral right, but no occupation. I do not know where her father died. If it is found that he died at Horowhenua I think she should be admitted into No. 11. She has had 105 acres already, whereas I have had nothing. I think the 105 acres is sufficient for her, as you ask my opinion. I do not know whether her 105 acres, or any part of it, is fit for cultivation, or at whose instance it was awarded her where it is. I know that Manihera te Bau lived permanently at Horowhenua. He has had 105 acres. I will consider him, and will rahui his houses and cultivation. The land south of Hokio belonged to Potangotango and Buatapu. Waiwiri belonged to Te Biunga. She went there to live after her marriage, and occupied it; no one interfered with her. The land south of Hokio should be awarded to the descendants of these ancestors who have occupied. Ido not know the names of the persons who were at Karekare when peace was made. The next peace I heard of was that between Whatanui and Taueki. Te Whatanui came first to Te Kawiu. His slaves made the clearing at Tewatutuwa. The slaves were Ngatiupokoiri. Te Whatanui. came with his party vid Te Manawa-o-Hipara from Karekare. Taueki and his people were at Te Kawiu when Whatanui arrived. They lived together amicably. I did not hear that Manihera te Bau came with Whatanui. I heard that Muaupoko and Ngatiapa were defeated at Karekare by Ngatiwhakatere and others. Te Whatanui and his people took part in the fight. I was born at Bangitikei, but have lived here all my life. I know Pirihira te Arahura's cultivations at Te Waitahi. Manihera te Bau cultivated with her. We all worked at the same place. Taueki, Himiona te Hopu, Tawhati-a-Tai, Te Baorao, Mahanga, Tomo, and others I have forgotten formerly cultivated at Te Watutua. It is a sheep-run now. Pitauai, Tawhati-a-Tumata, Tori, and Matene Pakauwera, Himiona Taiweherua, Wereta (father of Paranihia), Tarawahi, and Wi Perahama also cultivated there. Manihera te Bau has sheep running at Te Kawiu, on his wife's right. Many others have sheep grazing there. If I were you I would leave Manihera to be considered by the Muaupoko, and not claim anything as a right. Te Whatanui first leased Horowhenua to McDonald. Cannot give date of lease. It comprised the land south of Hokio. The Muaupoko bought the sheep they graze on Horowhenua. They procured their first sheep in the same way. If Manihera te Bau leased the land north of Hokio before 1873 he had no right to do so. Himiona te Hopu was a minister; never heard that he was a chief; he may have been. " Ahika" means continuous occupation by right of ancestry. If a person lived for fifty years upon a block of land in olden days any right he acquired would be respected. Manihera te Bau adopted two of the children of Ihaia Taueki. He gave all his stock

41

Q.— 2a

to his adopted child when he left for Otaki. Some of them have been sold. He made the gift at Horowhenua. I was at Horowhenua when he did it. I did not hear Manihera make the gift, but his adopted child told me that he had given her his stock. I have seen her husband shearing the sheep. She had charge of the stock before Manihera left for Otaki. All Muaupoko know of the gift. Makere te Bou told me that Mere Mionga was taken prisoner. They are sisters. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : The people I have authority to speak for are Taare Matai, Te Kiri Hopa, Kahukore Urinui, Te Ahuru Porotene, and Parahi Beihana. I also represent such portion of Hereora's interest as may be awarded to this section of the family. I claim to represent all Hereora's children. I can give the genealogy of Parahi Beihana : — Potangotango I Takoria I Raukawakawa = Te Atua I Pitauai = Pirihira = Noa te Whata Makere Parahi Reihana Parahi Beihana's only right is through her mother. I have no authority to represent any of the owners except those I have named above. I agree, on behalf of myself and those I represent, to leave the location of our interests to be decided by this Court without right of appeal. I ask this Court not to award to us any part of No. 11 south of the Hokio Stream. I know Waiwherowhero; it is on the south side of Hokio Stream. There is a large heap of posts at Waiwherowhero; they were taken there by Kawana Hunia. There is another heap of posts on the beach south of Hokio Stream ; they were also taken there by Kawana Hunia. The posts were taken there for the purpose of fencing the land south of Hokio Stream. The Muaupoko thought it was an act of intrusion by Kawana Hunia, and refused to allow the posts to be used in the construction of a fence. There was a fight about it. Makere, Tiripa Taueki, Buta, Kiritotara, Hereora, and many other women prevented the erection of the fence. Kawana Hunia and Paki te Hunga used axes to intimidate the women. It was an assertion of ownership by Makere and the other women as against Kawana Hunia. Te Piro, an ancestor of Baniera te Whata, lived at Kouturoa. Noa te Whata worked at Kouturoa after he returned from Arapaoa. He caught eels at an eel-pa there called Te Arawhata. Te Atua was at Horowhenua when Taueki and Whatanui made peace. He was Baniera te Whata's grandfather. Noa te Whata has lived at Horowhenua ever since he returned from Arapaoa. Te Aweawe lived at Te Whare-o-Tauira, on the Horowhenua Block, with Tanguru; he also helped to make peace; that is why I admit him, and object to Noa, who ran away. I cannot say where Te Aweawe's house was, but I can show that he worked with Tanguru at Te Whare-o-Tauira. Hariata Tinotahi worked the eel-pa at Pukaahu. It was hers until the gift to Whatanui. Hanita and others bought it back from Whatanui for £3. I never saw Makere working Te Maori eel-pa. This pa was also bought back from Whatanui. Te Buataniwha, Hariata Taniwha, and Hanita Kowhai worked this pa. Tarereremango : Eel-pa, at mouth of Hokio ; have not seen Hariata working there, but she has ancestral rights there. I said Mounuwahine was a bird-snaring place ; I will not be surprised if others deny it; I say what I have heard. Oero is a blind creek ; my ancestors caught birds there. Te Patiki is a small stream where my ancestors caught birds. Te Awa-o-te-tau : A bird-snaring place of my ancestors. I have made a mistake ; it was a rat-catching place and a stream. Taura Tukutuku : A rat-track, I think, but I am not sure; rats were caught and hinau-berries collected there. Te Karaka-o-te-aitu was a karaka-tree; it was not Baniera's, only it belonged to the descendants of Te Biunga. Te Kapa was a kainga of Potangotango. Takoria was a descendant of Potangotango. Have not heard that Te Kapa was first occupied in Takoria's time. Peace was made between Taueki and Whatanui at Te Kawiu. Te Aweawe was present when peace was made. Ido not know where he came from to Te Kawiu, or where he went afterwards. Hereora and Noa te Whata told me he was present. I cannot name any one who heard them tell me. Ani Tihore married a Wahoo (South Sea Islands). She lived at Te Waitahi. I did not hear that Kerehi Tomo brought her here. She had previously lived with Ngatitoa. Ido not remember when she first came to Horowhenua. I forget her father's name. I think Karoro was her mother. Ido not know what hapu she belonged to. I know that Ani Tihore was a descendant of Tireo. I did not hear that the totara-tree at Te Hou belonged to Matariki. I say still that Ihaia Taueki married Bangirurupuni's daughter. lam wrong. Ihaia married Bangirurupuni's cousin. The peace-making at Karekare was not final. Muaupoko were invited to Waikanae and murdered ; after that Te Whatanui endeavoured to prevent the Muaupoko going to Waikanae. Te Whatanui did not do anything to avenge their deaths, because it was their own fault. Be-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : Ido not claim south of Hokio, because Taueki gave it to Whatanui. Te Biunga derived her rights to Waiwiri from her ancestors, not from her husband, Taniwha; he did not take her there ; he was a younger relative of Te Ngaue. The reason Muaupoko objected to Kawana Hunia fencing at Waiwherowhero was that he wanted to grab all the land. .To Assessor : Tireo may have erected posts at other places, but they were pou pakanga. The post in Hokio Stream was a pou rahui. Taueki was a great chief of Muaupoko. I heard from my mother that when he was dying he told his people that he had given the land south of Hokio Stream to Whatanui. I did not hear that he left any instructions as to the treatment of the

6—G. 2a.

42

Gk—2a

people who returned after his death. He welcomed all those who returned during his lifetime, and never questioned their rights to the land. I never heard that Taueki and Tawhati-a-Tumata separated after Karekare. Tawhati-a-Tai was present at the peace-making. His mother, Hengaheonga, was killed when Muaupoko were attacked at Papaitonga by Ngatitoa. I have no opinion to offer as to the relative rights of the persons who returned at different periods. lam not in a position to express any opinion. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Court. I think all those who came back after the peace-making should be confined to the land south of Hokio Stream. They should not share in the land retained by my ancestors. The Court adjourned till the 11th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 11th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Case of Rawiri Rota —continued. John Beoughton sworn. Witness : lam a member of Ngaiteao and Ngatihine hapus. I live at Horowhenua. I am one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. My name in the certificate is Taare Matai. I have a claim to Horowhenua No. 11. My rights are the same as Baraku's. I am satisfied with the evidence given by her as to our rights. I can point out on the plan the places named by Baraku. [The witness then pointed out on the map the following places : Te Uamairangi is at mouth of Hokio on north side of stream, Baumatangi, Titirangi, Te Tau-o-te-kiekie, Te Arapaepae, Summit of Tararua, Ngapuketurua, Te Matapihi, Kopuapangopango, Ngatokorua, Waingaio, Te Mangaroa Pa, Pukearuhe, Karapu, Te Koropu, Hokiopuni, Te Waikiekie, Te Boha-o-te-Kawau, Te Namuiti, Waipata, Pukeiti, Mounuwahine, Oero, Te Patiki, Taura Tukutuku, Te Awa-o-te-tau, Te Bimu, Ti, Te Karaka-a-te-aitu, Te Kapa, Weraroa, Te Mai, Pakauhokio, Ohita, Ngararanui, Ngakawau, Mairua, Opai, Te Hopuhopu, Te Kawiu, Te Puapua, Te Hiha, Paringatai, Kupe, Ohenga, Komakorau, Te Kawe, Te Punanga, Te Pou-o-temou.] The descendants of Puaketeao and Temou worked the eel-pas in the Hokio Stream. Some of the Ngatipariri have worked at these pas, but not by right from Pariri. I mean Himiona Hanita and Hariata, who can trace from both sides. Pukaahu eel-pa was bought by Hanita Kowhai from Whatanui. Tonganui has been purchased by Noa te Whata. Both these pas were bought back from Whatanui after the gift to him. The sale by Te Whatanui has never been questioned by any of the descendants of Temou or Pariri. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I have known the Horowhenua Block for the last twenty years. It has been under lease to Europeans during that period. Major Kemp and the tribe leased it. I have lived permanently at Horowhenua for the last twelve years. The Muaupoko first leased the land north of Hokio Stream. Ihaia, Noa te Whata, Te Hapimana, Te Wirihana Tarewa, Wiremu Matakatea, Wi Hopiona, Manihera te Bau, Heta, and others took part in the lease. I think also Hoani Puihi, Buka Hanuhanu, and others. I cannot say whether the people generally approved of the lease. I attended the Native Land Court at Palmerston in 1886. One hundred and six of the owners received 105 acres each in No. 3by an award of that Court. This was done to draft out the outsiders. We thought then that some had no right, and they were put on the hills. It was not understood that those who got the 105 acres each had no right to any other part of the block. I was present when it was arranged to cut off the No. 3 Block. One of the reasons for cutting it off was that the persons to whom it was awarded could lease their interests, and by so doing promote settlement by Europeans. I know Manihera te Eau. He has always received his share of the rents. He has grazed sheep on Horowhenua ever since I first came here. Ido not know anything about Mere Mionga's rights to Horowhenua. I know that she is a daughter of Tawhati-a-Tumata. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I have been told about the boundary described by Baraku. My mother and others told me about it. It was a boundary between Muaupoko and Te Whatanui, and was laid down by Taueki. It was not our ancestral boundary. My mother pointed out to me the sandhill known as "Te Uamairangi "in 1879. We were living down there then. My mother did not take me over the whole boundary, but I have been to all the points named, except those on the Tararua. My mother told me that the land south of the boundary belonged to Te Whatanui. In 1873 it was awarded by the Court to Muaupoko. It is for Kemp to say now who should have it, because it was by his action that the land was secured for Muaupoko in 1873. I was not at the Court in 1873, but it is well known that Kemp recovered the land south of the Hokio Stream. Te Mangaroa was apa and a stream. It belonged to descendants of Te Ngarue. I cannot say who was the chief of the pa. Pukearuhe was a pa. It belonged to descendants of Puakiteao and Potangotango te Baorao, Taueki, Tori, and others. Karapu belonged to the same people. Te Koropu belonged to our ancestors —Tireo, Te Biunga, Buatapa, Potangotango, and Te Koa. I heard they were all born there except Te Koa. Ido not know where he was born. Noa te Whata told me this ; he was the last of the Kaumatua ; he died in 1893 or 1894. Hokiopuni was apa and cultivation ; it belonged to the same ancestors, and is now the property of their descendants. Waikiekie was a palisaded pa. All the pas, hunting-grounds, eel-weirs, kaingas, &c, pointed out by me on the plan belonged

43

G.—2a

to the same ancestors, and no others. I have heard of Pariri, Kawainga, and Bongopatahi: they had no right to this land. I object to them. I never heard where Te Bongopatahi's lands were. I heard Ngataahi say that he lived at Te Kawiu. I heard that a large number of Muaupoko are descended from these three ancestors. I heard it from the descendants of Pariri. I misunderstood your last question. The Muaupoko are not all descended from Bongopatahi, Kawainga, and Pariri. I know Te Bangirurupuni; he is a descendant of Kawainga. I know Wiki Pua and Kerehi Tomo ; they are descendants of Te Bongopatahi. Makere te Bou is a descendant of Pariri. Karaitiana Tarawahi, I have heard, is a descendant of Pariri. Ido not know where Tui lived. I do not know where Te Aowhakapupu lived. Hineimatahirangi I never heard of. I have heard of Heminga ; I do not know where he lived. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : The islands in Horowhenua Lake were natural islands, but were enlarged when pas were built on them ; they are diminishing in size now. Mangaroa is entirely under water; I cannot say whether it was a more ancient pa than the others. I have heard of a war-party besieging Mangaroa; cannot give date. I was not present at meeting at Kupe about Horowhenua in 1870. The reason that Baraku and I have a separate case from the other descendants of Taueki is that the tribe proposed to rely on occupation or possession of the land alone, without going into the question of ancestry. I see now that they have set up ancestry. I think that Te Baorao, Bea Hamuera, and Bangimairehau are not descended from either Kawainga, Bongopatahi, or Pariri. I do not know of any others in the list of 1873 who are not, except Manihera te Bau. Kawana Hunia, Ngataahi, Mereana, and Ani Patene cannot trace their descent from Puaki te Ao, so far as I know. Mangaroa Pa is at north end of lake. I do not remember Karira and his two daughters coming to Horowhenua when Pipiriki Pa was built. I never heard of Karira. I think the boundary between Taueki and Whatanui is north of Hokio Stream. If that is so, all the eelpas in the stream went to Te Whatanui. It is only since 1886 that the most of the people have used the eel-pas. I suppose the elders of Muaupoko agreed to the arrangement between Taueki and Whatanui. There was never any trouble about it. Ido not know that Kemp has given evidence to the effect that Tanguru never agreed to it. It held good till about 1869 or 1870, when Kemp's elders were alive. I consider that it is binding upon us to this day. I cannot justify Kemp's efforts in dispossessing the Ngatiraukawa of the Hokio Stream; it was a breach of faith. Kemp may have considered himself justified in his action because the Ngatiraukawa encroached on Muaupoko land. Ido not know that they did so. It will be on record if they did. [Horowhenua Commission, page 263, question 194, read.] I did say that. I do not adhere to it now. Just before Kemp went to Taupo he handed in lists of names for Nos. 11 and 12, and the last words he used were these : " This is my list of names; leave it to me to settle." I thought at the time we were put back in the same position as we were in before, and I wanted the question settled at once. I thought by moving that Kemp's name be struck out that it would bring the matter to an issue. We are here now to get our rights. It is for the Court to say whether Kemp is entitled to more than he has already received. I cannot say why the descendants of Taueki did not restrict their claims to the land north of Hokio in 1873. I never heard that Taueki was a catcher of eels for Ngatiraukawa, or that he carried them on his back to his masters at Otaki. I never heard that Ihaia Taueki met with an accident at Otaki. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : The boundary question was brought up in the Court of 1873 by Kemp, I think. I will not say that Kemp has given the same boundary that I have given. Ido not know whether Kemp's evidence was confined to places on Hokio Stream given. to Whatanui. I have never asked Ihaia Taueki about the boundary. I have never spoken to any Muaupoko now alive about it, nor has any Muaupoko spoken to me ; they are hiding it. The only persons who have spoken of the boundary that I know of are Hereora, Baraku, Noa te Whata, and myself. Noa te Whata spoke to me about it in private ; he was teaching me the history of our land. I have a step-sister and step-brother older than myself; they know of the boundary. If they like to deny it they can. I have heard Noa talking about it. There was trouble at Waiwherowhero in 1879 relative to the lands which Taueki gave to Whatanui. Makere Hereora and many others of Muaupoko objected to Hunia putting up a fence there, but that was because the certificate of 1873 had made them owners of the land. I suppose the certificate was stronger in their minds than Taueki's ohaki to Whatanui. Notwithstanding their action, I, the child of Hereora, decline to make any claim on the land, because it was given away. To Assessor : The whole of the Horowhenua Block belonged to the ancestors of Ngaiteao. We say that it now belongs to the descendants of those ancestors who did not run away. They were fairly numerous. I cannot give all their names. The Ngatipariri and other hapus assisted them against their enemies, having intermarried with them, and became known as Ngaiteao. I have heard that Te Hukui was a Ngatiapa. I suppose he married Pariri in the Ngatiapa country. If there were any Ngatipariri present when peace was made between Taueki and Whatanui the Court will consider their rights. Case closed. Henare te Apatari's Case. Te Bewanui Apataei on former oath. Witness : I live at Te Awapuni, near Palmerston. I omitted to trace from Te Aoroa, eldest child of Te Aonui. I will do so now [gives whakapapa]. I have heard that my ancestors lived at Pukearuhe, and Paringatai, and Te Puata with their relatives ; Tanguru, Te Aweawe, Ngawhakawa, and Te Pa-ki-te-hau lived at Puata. Te Aweawe and his wife both lived there. Te Baorao lived in Paringatai. Taueki, Mahanga, Tawhati-a-tumata, Tawhati-a-henga, and others lived at Pukearuhe.

a.—2a

44

The Ngaiteao always lived together. Te Kae-o-te-karaka was thsir cultivation when living at the pas named. Parianiwaniwa was another pa. I have not seen it, but was told about it. I heard that Tihore and her tungane lived in this pa. Te Whare-o-te-uira was a kainga and a forest. Tanguru and his younger and elder relatives lived and worked there. Te Aweawe lived there with them. Mairua, a kainga : the same people lived there—the descendants of Puaki te Ao ; they always lived together. Ta te Arero, I heard, was a kainga of Parianiwaniwa and Te Kapuwae; they lived and worked there; their descendants did also; they died there. I heard that they were buried at Ta te Arero ; they were not taken to the ordinary burial-place. I saw Ani Kanara Tihore living at Te Waitahi with Hereora and Te Kiri. Their principal house was called Te Bongo-o-tararua. I saw their cultivations there. I did not see Ani Tihore living at any other place on the block, but I have not lived here permanently. I have given the names of all the kaingas made known to me by my elders. The pas named by me are near where the Hokio Stream leaves the lake, on north side of stream. I will now give names of pas in the lake: Te Roha-o-te-Kawau, Waikiekie, Waipata, and Te Namuiti. These are on islets in Horowhenua Lake. They were fighting pas of my ancestors, on which they defeated Te Eauparaha and his people. Te Aweawe and Mahuri did not take part in the fights when Te Eauparaha attacked the pas. They did not live here continuously. Sometimes they lived at Otuiti and Puketotara, in Manawatu. The reason for this was that Kikinoroa married Hinekautu, and begat Tokipoto, who married Hinerautekihi. The rights to Otuiti were derived from Kaikinoroa a Ngaitamawahine. Te Kahutaratara married Tihore. This gave Te Aweawe and Mahuri rights to Puketotara and other places in Manawatu. They did not live at Puketotara and Otuiti by right from Tireo. Te Aweawe, Mahuri, Tanguru, and Ngawhakawa went about together from place to place after the disputes in connection with Horowhenua were over. Ngawhakawa died in Manawatu. The Court adjourned till the 12th instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 12th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Henare te Apatari's Case —continued. Te Bewanui Apatari's examination-in-chief continued. Witness ; After the death of Ngawhakawa, Tanguru went from Tiakitahuna to Wanganui, to take his wife, Bereomaki, to her home there. He then came back to Horowhenua, and died here. I heard that he died here. I have something to say respecting the allegation of Muaupoko that the claims of Te Aweawe have lapsed. It is not as if Muaupoko had conquered Te Aweawe and Ngawhakawa that they went to Manawatu. They went to Manawatu because they had rights to lands there, knowing also that they had claims to land here. Bangahau, sister of Te Aweawe, married Ngarangiwhakaotia and lived here, at the places I mentioned yesterday. They were in the pas that were attacked by the taua. Bangiwhakaotia killed the first man in that fight. I will now refer to the capture of Anikanara Tihore. When Te Bauparaha came to this district with his people they saw Mahuri, and Te Bauparaha's people wished to kill him, but Te Bauparaha said, " No ; let us get Tokipoto, the keel of Kuruhaupo." Te Bauparaha made friends with Mahuri, and persuaded him to fetch Tokipoto. Te Mahuri went and asked Tokipoto to visit Bauparaha. He went with Bangitane and Muaupoko, and was killed, with Te Marake and many other chiefs of those tribes. Mahuri and Te Aweawe escaped with others. Ani Tihore was taken prisoner to Kapiti. After this was the murder of Mahuri. Te Aweawe was spared by Tungia, and taken to Kapiti. Tungia told him to return to his people. Te Aweawe asked Ani Tihore to accompany him. Tungia gave Te Aweawe a bill-hook, and said, " Go, and return again to avenge your mate." When Te Aweawe reached Manawatu he collected a taua and killed Muriwhakaroto. After this victory Tiweta persuaded him to return to Manawatu for fear of defeat by Ngatiawa and Ngatitama. I will explain about the murder of Mahuri. After he was killed the Paengaroa heke went to Wairarapa. It consisted of Ngatitama and Ngatiawa, chiefly Ngatitama. When they reached Wairarapa they treated the Wairarapa chiefs as Te Bauparaha had treated Tokipoto. Then the Wairarapa people killed Paengahuru, and this led to the murder of Mahuri. The Court announced that a letter had been received from Hoani Meihana asking the Court to allow Te Bewanui Apatari to give evidence on his behalf in Horowhenua No. 11. Witness : Hoani Meihana is a descendant of Tireo :— Tireo Teßa Te Rangiotu Hoani Meihana He has the same ancestral rights to this land as the other descendants of Tireo. Hoani Meihana lived at Horowhenua when he was young. I heard that he lived with Taueki and Te Bangihouhia at the places I mentioned yesterday. I heard from my elders that all the Muaupoko lived together. When Hoani Meihana lived here Tutaki, the son of Whatanui, attacked him with a Maori weapon. The Muaupoko took Hoani's part, and stopped the quarrel. I heard that Te Bangihouhia and Taueki brought Hoani Meihana here. I did not hear that Te Bangiotu or Te Ba lived at Horowhenua. Ido not know how long Hoani lived here. It must have been some years. He was

45

G.—2a

taken back to Manawatu by Te Hakeke, who was incensed with him for some offence committed by him. I have not heard that he ever returned here, but he took the leading part in putting all these lands through the Court—he and his younger relatives—Te Peeti, Kemp, and Kawana Hunia. I consider that this is equivalent to permanent occupation. When Horowhenua was before the Court in 1873 the Bangitane collected £150 towards the expenses. It was given to Kawana Hunia and Te Whatahoro. I mention this because neither Kemp nor Wirihana referred to it. The Bangitane also provided food for the people. The money with which it was purchased was made a charge upon Te Awapuni, and has remained a charge upon that land ever since. I have not mentioned these sums with a view to their being repaid, but simply to show that the Bangitane assisted the Muaupoko. At one time the Ngatiraukawa had the mana over the whole of the territory between Manawatu and Pukerua. Peace was made between Taueki and Whatanui, and Taueki invited the survivors of Muaupoko to return to Horowhenua. It was then that Taueki asked Whatanui if he could protect him, and Whatanui replied that he could, and added, " I am the rata that keeps off the wind ; only rain-drops will fall upon you ; the hand of man will not be raised against you." After that Te Bauparaha and Bangihaeata came to attack the remnants of Muaupoko, but Whatanui prevented them ; he said, " Allow them to live." I heard it was at that time that Taueki made over the southern side of Hokio, with the pa tuna, to Te Whatanui. I have never heard that any of the elders of Muaupoko ever objected to the gift of Taueki to Te Whatanui; the objections have been raised by Kemp, Te Peeti, and others. When Te Aweawe heard that Ngatihuia had put up a post near Moutere he came to Poroutawhao, and asked Ngatihuia to return him his land. Huia, Te Hoia, Epiha, and many others said, " Topeora will reply to Te Aweawe," which she did, and complied with Te Aweawe's request. She gave Poroutawhao and the people to Te Aweawe, who was satisfied, and said, " Let the boundary be put back to Ngatokorua, and run from thence to Te Arapaepae." After this Himiona te Hopu put in a post on the north bank of Kopuapangopango Swamp. Te Aweawe made an ohaki; he called his children together at Puketotara, and said to Te Peeti, " Give back all the lands of your sister Ereni. I have no land here, as you know. Other people have possession of it all. Look towards the south; there is only a small portion left there —that is, Horowhenua." Before Te Peeti died he returned all the lands he had inherited from his mother to Ereni. Horowhenua he kept for his son, Hanita te Aweawe. The share of Ani Tihore in Horowhenua he also gave to Hanita and his brothers. I have no intention or desire to disregard the ohaki of my grandfather if the Court finds that we are entitled to participate in this land. I wish my cousins only included in the title, not myself or my sister. I wish to explain the position of some of the Muaupoko who object to Te Aweawe : —■ Potangotango = Tokai (of Ngatiapa) Tapuwae I Taueki This whakapa shows that Taueki was a half-caste. Potangotango — Tokai I Hinearahi Porihariha Tomo I Te Kerehi Therefore Kerehi is also a half-caste. Te Baorao and others are half-castes also. Takoria = Ngongore (of Ngaitahu) I I Pirihira = Noa Pitauai — Tawhati-a-tumata I I | Makere = Rakuraku (of Ngaitahu) Raniera Heta The above are undoubtedly half-castes. Makere lived in the South Island. Her children were born there: — Tongariro I More Takipaukena = Tohu (of Te Whatinapiti hapu of Ngatikahungunu) Waata Tohu and sisters These are half-caste Whatinapiti, and yet their rights are admitted by some of the parties to this case. Tohu was brought here as a slave. Waata Tohu has lived permanently in Manawatu, at Paparewa and other places. Te Bangimairehau has not lived permanently "on this land: he was taken prisoner to the South Island. When he returned he married a Ngatiawa woman. After her death he married a sister of Henare te Herekau, and lived.in Manawatu. They were my matua whangai. He did not live at Horowhenua until he married Makere. Baniera te Whata lived with his masters, the Ngatiawa, at Porirua until he bolted with Maiangi to Wanganui. It is only lately that he has lived at Horowhenua. Kaewa married Te Hakeke, and lived at Bangitikei. Kawana Hunia was born and lived there. The Court will see that Kawana Hunia was a halfcaste. He married Buta, of Ngatiupokoiri, and begat Wirihana Hunia and others. Tanguru married Bereomaki, of Wanganui, and begat Kemp and Bora. They are half-castes. Kemp married

Gh—2a

46

Makere, a Wanganui, and begat Wiki. Bora married Hakaraia Korako, also a Wanganui; her children are Haruru Xi te Bangi, and others. Kemp and Bora have not lived on this land. Their occupation ceased with Tanguru. The father of Bihipeti Nireaha, Hetariki Matao, was a Ngatitewaita, of the Forty-mile Bush. When Bihipeti Nireaha married Nireaha she left this land. Her parents did not occupy it permanently. Te Riunga -= Taniwha | Parianiwaniwa Te Wairoto Te Aopineki I Arabia = Tukehu I Mahara = Warena Mahuri I Mairama Heremaia Maika I bring down this genealogy in order that the Court may be familiar with ib. It is the line through which Kemp claims rights at Papaitonga, and yet he puts Te Peeti upon the hills. I have seen Te Pou-o-temou, and I ask the Court to go and see it. It is in the Hokio Stream, just above Baumatangi. A greenstone belonging to my ancestors was hidden at Mairua. It was a tiki named Manuka. It was lost when the fights I have spoken of took place. In Te Whatanui's time the ground was cultivated by his slaves, and the tiki found by them. It belonged by right to Meretene, but I heard that she handed it to Kerehi Tomo, who has it now. Ido not know which of the ancestors owned it when it was hidden. Rawiri Rota: No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I have heard of Karekare, and the fight that took place there. I have heard of the peace-making there between Te Whatanui and my ancestor, Te Mahuri. I have not heard that Muaupoko were attacked there by Ngatiraukawa. Mere Mionga has ancestral rights to Horowhenua from Tireo. All the Muaupoko are descendants of Tireo or his brothers. Mere Mionga derives her right from her father's side. Manihera te Bau is a relative of mine, but he has no ancestral rights to Horowhenua. The only claim he has is continuous occupation and ringakaha. The Court knows he is a Ngatiraukawa. Ido not question the rights of any Muaupoko to Horowhenua. I have given Hoani Puihi's whakapapa. He has good rights to Horowhenua. I have seen him living at Horowhenua. Ido not know anything about the early leases of this land. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: The ancestors whose names I have given were the owners of this land. Pariri has no right to this land that I know of. His descendants had rights south of this, at Pukerua, through Hukiu; but the land there has gone to others now. I have heard that Pariri's rights were on the other side of Tararua Bange, where the lands of the Hikaotaota were. I do not know where Te Bongopatahi and Kawainga's lands were. I got my information from my elders and from Hoani Meihana. Bihipeti has no right to Horowhenua from Pariri; she has from Te Hukui, because Te Hukui's land was taken by Ngatiraukawa, and his descendants should share in what is left of Muaupoko lands. I have heard of Tamati Maunu, but Ido not know anything about him, or what tribe he belonged to. Hoani Meihana is an expert in whakapapa; he taught me the one I have given. I only know of one Taniwha in my whakapapa; he married Te Biunga. The descendants of Puakiteao and Temou, as such, have no rights anywhere but at Horowhenua. I remember the Pahiatua case. We claimed there from Potaka, and the land was awarded to the descendants of that ancestor. I believe Hoani Meihana claimed from Tireo through Tongariro, who had lived there, according to Waata Tohu. I denied Tireo's rights, and said that his lands were west of Tararua —at Aorangi No. 3 and other places. His right at Aorangi No. 3 was by mana, and was not equal to his rights at Horowhenua. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald; Witness : There were many chiefs in Manawatu besides Tireo. He had no rights at Aorangi. The other chiefs had substantial rights; that is why they received more than Tireo. The great bulk of the land had been sold by Te Hirawanu and others to save it from Ngatiraukawa. Te Aweawe and Tanguru agreed to the sale. I have said that Hukui's rights were at Pukerua. Ido not know anything about Ngataitoko except that he married Hikaotaota; they lived south of this. Ido not know whether Tunaitewaru was a man or woman. I was not told who he or she married. Tireo was Puakiteao's eldest son. He was killed by Ngatiapa in Manawatu ; he was lying ill in his house when they killed him. He was avenged at Te Paka, where Ngatiapa were defeated. I have heard of Mangere and Tawhakahiku; they were killed at Te Beporoa, below Papaitonga, by Aitupaoa, of Ngaitara, one of the original owners of the land. It was not Bangiheke who killed them. The Muaupoko had no rights to Tuwhakatupua. It was awarded to my tupuna wahine — that is to say, to the Bangitane who had rights there. We did not invite Muaupoko to share it, because they had no right there. Te Aweawe had rights here, and that is why lam claiming for his descendants. I heard that Horowhenua was divided in 1886. At that time Kemp went to Te Awapuni, and stayed in the house occupied by Te Peeti's family. Kemp said then, " When Muaupoko arrive, let us all go to Palmerston to divide Horowhenua; I am going to remove my mana rom the land, and return it to the tribe." The day was fixed, and Hanita, Tamihane, Bawera, and

47

G.—2a

Hare Bakena went to Palmerston, but the Muaupoko did not discuss the division of the block while they were there. My matuas went on two occasions, but there was no talk. After they had left Kemp and Muaupoko met and put my people on the hill-tops. Takes were not gone into. Hanita and my other relatives did not go to the Court; Ido not know why ;it was not because they had no rights. Taueki, Tanguru, and Te Aweawe were friends, and often lived together. My elders did not put Taueki into any of their Manawatu land because Puakiteao and Temou, Taueki's ancestors, had no right there. I have not heard whether Te Aweawe was at Pukerua when it was attacked by Tuwhare and Te Bauparaha. He was not at Wiekiekie when it was attacked. I heard that Ngawhakawa and Te Aweawe took part in the attack on Te Bauparaha at Te Wi. Te Aweawe was not at Waipata when it was attacked; he had returned to Manawatu. Te Aweawe was not at Waikiekie when it was attacked by Te Bauparaha. He was not at Papaitonga when it was attacked by Bauparaha, but my ancestors Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were. Te Aweawe and his tribe (Bangitane) took part in the fight at Waimea, where Peehi's children were killed. I did not hear whether Te Aweawe killed anybody at Te Wi. Ido not know whether Whareao was a man or woman. Kawana Hunia was born at Bangitikei. He had a brother, Hare Bakena, who died at the Wairoa. I heard Wirihana Hunia say at this Court that Kawana Hunia had another brother named Wirihana ; never heard it before. Hereora, Kiri and others had a large house made of raupo at Waitahi; it was a meeting-house. Ido not know who built it. I say it was theirs, because I saw them living in it. It was not a new house when I saw it. I cannot point out the places I have named on the plan, but I could on the land—those of them that I have seen. Ido not know where Parianiwaniwa is, but I heard it was a pa. Te Whare-o-te-uira : I have not seen it; heard it was this side of Moutere. I cannot point out Mairua, but I can Ta te Arero. The Court adjourned till the 13th instant. Levin, Thursday, 13th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Henare te Apatari's Case —continued. Te Bewanui Apataei, cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I heard Kemp say in this Court that it was because Te Aweawe had no right that he was put up on the hills. I did not know until then that Te Aweawe was put on the hills. lam not aware whether Hoani Meihana knew he was put on the hills or not. Hanita te Aweawe was not the general conductor for Bangitane in 1886 ; he acted for himself. Hoani Meihana for himself, and Horomona Paro for Bangitane. I did not see Hanita te Aweawe and Hoani Meihana in the Court in 1886 when Muaupoko were discussing the division of Horowhenua. I was at Te Awapuni. I do not know whether they were in Palmerston all the time Horowhenua was before the Court or not. [Vol. 7, page 142, 12th November, 1886 : " Hanita te Aweawe applies on behalf of Kemp to have Horowhenua case adjourned from Palmerston to Awapuni."] I repeat that I did not see Hanita te Aweawe there. I said yesterday that my matuas went to Palmerston to take food for Muaupoko to Palmerson's house, where they had assembled, and to take part in the discussion about the division of Horowhenua, as requested by Kemp. The Muaupoko and Kemp went into their house to talk, and my matuas remained outside. They were not ashamed to assert any claims where they had none. They waited for Kemp to invite them to take part in the discussions. I did not apply for a rehearing of the partition of Horowhenua, because I did not know that Te Aweawe was put on the hills until No. 14 was before this Court. I do not know that Hoani Meihana knew where his division was. I did not attend the sittings of the Court at Palmerston in 1890 and 1891, although I knew that I had rights in Horowhenua by ancestry and occupation. My matuas were waiting to know what had .been done by Muaupoko. It is only now I hear from Kemp himself that he considers we have no right, and that is why I have set up a case, in order to prove my rights. I did know in 1890 that Horowhenua No. 3 was being divided, but I did not know where Te Aweawe's share was located. I do not know that applications for rehearing were made for any of the divisions. I did hear that applications for rehearing were heard and determined in 1891. I saw the Kahiti, but did not attend the Court. My matua, Hanita te Aweawe, was the conductor of their interests at the time, and he did not go to the Court. A taupahi and apa are the same, in my opinion. The proverb, " Moumou taku taane a Te Aweawe, ma tenei wahine Hatai," was made at the time Te Aweawe and his wife came to Horowhenua, when Te Aweawe and his relatives were living in Puata Pa. I cannot say whether it was before or after the coming of Te Bauparaha. I was not told. Muaupoko and Makere know of the whakatauaki, but they may deny any knowledge of it. Te Aweawe worked at Te Whare-o-te-uira with Tanguru and others after the coming of Te Bauparaha, but it was an old cultivation of their elders. I cannot give the date at which Te Aweawe worked there. I told the Court that Te Bongo-o-tararua was a meeting-house used by Hereora, Te Kiri, and their tunganes. I heard that it belonged to them. I formed that impression from what I saw. I was not told. Ido not know that Ngatuere built the house. I was not there when it was built. I did not hear Hoani Meihana say that he came to Horowhenua as a visitor merely. I have told the Court his matua brought him here. I have not heard that he had a cultivation or a house on the block. He was quite young at the time. Peeti te Aweawe was a half-caste in the same position as Baniera te Whata, Makere te Bou, and Kerehi Tomo. Kahutaratara, the husband of Tihore, was a Bangitane. Their child was Hinerau te Kihi. She married Tokipoto, a Bangitane, but his mother was a Muaupoko, although I cannot trace her descent. Their children in the

a.— 2a

48

title are Te Aweawe and Bangahau. Te Aweawe married Hinetarake, of Bangitane, and begat Ereni and Peeti. Ereni married a Ngatiraukawa. Te Bangahau married Ngarangiwhakaotia. I do not know that Ngarangiwhakaotia had been married previously. Bangahau's child was Meretene Whakaewa, who married Kerei te Panau. All these persons died at Manawatu (all the descendants of Tihore), but Te Aweawe assisted Kemp and Kawana Hunia to obtain this land. Karoro was the second child (wife ?) of Tihore. She married Tihore, and was his second wife. Karoro was murdered at Manawatu, where she lived. Her daughter, Ani Tihore, was taken prisoner on Bangitane land at Otuiti. She was taken to Kapiti, and then to Porirua. She returned to Horowhenua in 1860. Te Aweawe asked her to return here. It was not Kerehi Tomo who brought her here. Ani Tihore afterwards went from Horowhenua to Peeti's place at Manawatu, but she did not give up her rights to her land by doing so. Peeti left her at Te Boto-a-taane to dig potatoes. She afterwards returned to Horowhenua, and died here. Wairoto's child was Te Bangiwhakatekaia. Ido not know who he married (Te Mate, a child of Buatapu). Their child was Hineawhitia, who married Te Atara, child of Te Piro. Noa te Whata lived here while Baniera te Whata was in Wanganui. I never heard of Bangiheke having killed Mangere and Tawhakahiku until yesterday. I heard from my elders that they were killed by Te Aitupaoa. Be-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness: Wharekohu and his people avenged Mangere and Tawhakahiku. That is what I have heard. Wharekahu was a descendant of Kupe, and married Takatumoana, of Bangitane. Te Aitupaoa and Ngatimamoe were driven away, and went to the South Island. To Assessor : I do not say that this land belongs to both Bangitane and Muaupoko, but I do say that lam a member of both those tribes. I have heard my elders discussing the origin of the name Muaupoko. Some said that Bangitane was the general name of the people, and that Muaupoko was a new name, taken from a lake somewhere south of where we are, but they did not come to any decision on the matter. I heard that the people here were called Muaupoko before the coming of Te Bauparaha. I have given Tireo's Bangitane descent through Hinerehe, who married Bangiwetea. Te Uamairangi was not the first to settle. There were people here when he came. It must have been after the return of Ngawhakawa from the South Island that he, Tanguru, and Te Aweawe lived together at Puata, near where Te Kupe now stands. I came to Horowhenua in 1875 and 1877. Have not visited the kaingas across the lake since 1877. I did not hear that Te Aweawe came here as a mediator between Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa. He came to the land of his ancestors. Te Peeti came to Pipiriki to prevent fighting between Kawana Hunia and Kemp and the Ngatiraukawa. This was when the Ngatiraukawa houses were burnt. Keeei te Panau sworn. Witness : I live at Te Awapuni. I am a Bangitane and Muaupoko. I am one of the few surviving chiefs of these tribes. I have heard that Te Aweawe came here to adjust the boundary between Ngatihuia andMuaupoko. He asked the Ngatihuia to give back the land which had belonged to himself and his relations. Topeora gave back the land to Te Aweawe; the boundary was fixed from Ngatokorua to Te Arapaepae and on to the sea. Te Aweawe, Tihore, and Bangahau lived at Horowhenua. I first saw them living at Te Namuiti when I was a youth. They also lived at the places mentioned by Te Bewanui; they cultivated at Te Whare-o-te-uira. Their kaingas on the mainland were Te Bae-o-te-karaka, Te Puata, Paringatai, Pukearuhe, Kotoi, Te Watahi, and Poumaru. They lived at these places with Muaupoko. They had no cultivations that I know of, but they caught birds and procured hinau berries at Te Mairua. I do not know the names of any other food-collecting places. I heard that they lived at Ta te Arero also, but I have not been there. Te Kapuwae and Parianiwaniwa died there, lam told. Ido not know whether they were buried or cremated. lam a descendant of Te Kapuwai. He occupied Horowhenua, but his child, Te Buareinga, did not, nor did Bipi. Ripi = Te Waihuri I Pokairangi I Tamati Panau I Kerei te Panau Te Waihuri was a Bangitane. I have heard of Te Pou-o-temou, but have not seen it. Ido not know why it was put in. I have heard of a greenstone being hidden on the Horowhenua Block ; the hiding-place was forgotten, and the stone was afterwards discovered by Te Whatanui's workmen. I heard at Mairua. It was called " Manukatarewa." I heard that it belonged to Meretene Whakaewa's elders, and subsequently to her. Te Aweawe came here to adjust the boundary of Horowhenua because he knew it was his own land—his and his relatives who were residing on it. I heard from my elders that it was Wharekohu and his people who killed Te Aitupaoa and his people. They were killed at Horowhenua. Some of them escaped and fled to the South Island. My elders returned to Horowhenua to assist their people here when they were in danger of attack. When the danger was over my elders went back to their homes. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I saw Taueki. He was living at Te Puata; Tanguru and his children were living with him. Pioka, Te Atuakohara, Baorao, Hatukituki, Mahara, Tamati Maunu, and other Muaupoko lived close to where Taueki lived. They were all of equal rank, but Taueki, Tanguru, and Te Atuakohara were the most prominent. Tamati Maunu was of lower rank than the others. I heard of an agreement between Taueki and Te Whatanui. I heard that Taueki asked Te Whatanui if he could protect him. Te Whatanui replied that he could. Then Taueki gave him

49

G-.—2a

some land, the boundary of the land from Tau-o-te-ruru to the sea. It included the Hokio Stream. I never heard from my elders that any of Muaupoko objected to the gift of land made by Taueki to Te Whatanui. I have never heard any one object to it. If it was objected to in the Court at Foxton in 1873 I could not have been present. I did not hear it. I know that the land now before the Court extends to Waiwiri. Ido not remember when Taueki died. I have seen Hoani Puihi living permanently at Horowhenua ; sometimes he went to Wanganui, where he has relatives. I never heard of his being taken prisoner. I never heard that Ihaka te Bangihouhia was taken prisoner by Ngatitama. I knew Tamati Maunu. I have not heard that he was taken prisoner by Ngatitama. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : Ido not know anything about the peace-making at Karekare. I heard that peace was made there, but it was broken; it was between Whatanui and Mahuri. Whatanui went from Otaki to Karekare. Ido not know why Whatanui went there, or whether any Muaupoko were taken prisoners there. I first came to Horowhenua when I was quite a child, before the Treaty of Waitangi. I saw the first church at Horowhenua. Himiona and Manihera te Bau were the first and second lay-readers in that church. Manihera te Bau lived at Paringatai at that time. I did not know Pita Pukeroa. Ido not know anything about the first leases of this land. Himiona te Hopu was a rangatira of Muaupoko. He had rights to Horowhenua. I do not know how he derived his rights. I knew Mere Mionga; she had rights in Horowhenua through her father, Ta-whati-a-tumata. Her children inherit her rights. I have not heard that Ngatiapa took her prisoner. She was taken prisoner by Ngatiparakiore before her marriage to Hauparoa. After her marriage she returned to Horowhenua at times. I suppose she came here because she had a right. I know Te Bangimairehau; Ido not know when he was born; he has lived at Manawatu, Whangaehu, and Horowhenua. I cannot give the names of all the people killed at Mahurangi. I do not know that Bangimairehau lived at Arapaoa. I think that Manihera te Bau should receive an award in No. 11 in consideration of his ringakaha and his marriage with Pirihira. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : Te Peeti would be called a Muaupoko here and a Bangitane in the Bangitane country. I cannot remember the year Te Aweawe adjusted the boundary of Horowhenua with Ngatihuia. I was grown up. Tamati Maunu was of equal rank with the other chiefs of Muaupoko. I made a mistake by saying in reply to Bawiri that he was of lesser rank than the others. I assume that he had rights to Horowhenua because I saw him living here. His children should inherit his rights. He had an elder brother, Noa te Waiehi. I do not know whether he had a sister. I knew Hinerangi, who married Tinotahi. I have seen her at Horowhenua, and assume that she had rights to the land, but I do not know how she derived them. My boundary of the gift to Te Whatanui is the correct one. That given by Te Baraku is wrong. Ngatiraukawa will support my version. I was a big boy when I saw the people I have mentioned as living together. They used to collect hinau and tawa berries on this side of the lake. Their landing-place was at Te Kawiu. I know Te Paki te Hunga; he is a Muaupoko, and as such he has a right to Horowhenua. I know Wereta te Pahi; he is a Muaupoko, and has a right to Horowhenua. Father of Paranihia Biwai. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : lam older than Major Kemp ; one week older. I was not present when Te Aweawe discussed boundary with Ngatihuia. I heard that Topeora returned the land to Te Aweawe, not to Muaupoko. The boundary was fixed at Ngatokorua eventually. I believe the adjustment of the boundary by Te Aweawe was brought up in the Court at Foxton in 1873, but lam not sure. Hera, my grandmother, told me that Kapuwae and Parianiwaniwa died at Ta-te-arero. I saw Pioka here. I cannot say he had no right to Horowhenua, because he was a Muaupoko. He was a middle-aged man when I saw him. I suppose he had lived here from his youth. Whatukituki was a permanent resident here. He was christened Wi Perahama. I remember Te Kuititanga. I saw the people referred to as living at Horowhenua both before and after Te Kuititanga. [Vol. 13, folio 163 : Kemp's evidence.] I never heard that Tanguru objected to Taueki making peace with Whatanui. Ido not know when Hector McDonald first came here. I heard that Kawana Hunia was interfering with his lease on south side of Hokio, but I never heard of Muaupoko having objected to the stream going to Whatanui. Ido not know why Hunia should object to the lease if he asserted no claim to the land. Ido not know that Taueki lived at Manawatu with Te Aweawe. He visited Te Aweawe at Otuiti sometimes. The only trouble I heard of in connection with Horowhenua before the Court of 1873 was the burning by Hunia of the Ngatiraukawa houses. I do not know when the name Muaupoko first came into use. All the Muaupoko were at one time Bangitane. My ancestor Bangimahuki was both Bangitane and Muaupoko. It is only recently that Muaupoko have been known as a separate tribe. I knew Kawana Hunia; he had brothers—Hare Bakena te Kourarua and Te Wirihana te Maihi, who is buried across the lake. Hare Bakena died at Wairoa, Hawke's Bay. He was taken there by his aunt, Wikitoria Tamou, on a visit, and died there. I have heard of Bangihouhia. He was a chief. He was Te Bauparaha's most formidable enemy. Te Hakeke took him to Bangitikei, because he was one of Kaewa's elders. I have heard of the killing of Bauparaha's children by Muaupoko. I heard that Tanguru, Ngarangiwhakaotia, Warakihi, Ngawhakawa, Te Aweawe, and others of Muaupoko took part in that fight. Te Bangihouhia, Bangihiwinui, Paetahi, Toheriri, were there also. Te Whatanui may have come through the gorge to Karekare. Ngatiraukawa broke the peace made there by killing Toheriri, Takare, and Paipai at Papaitonga. Ngatihuia and Bangihaeata killed them. Ngatihuia were one of Bangihaeata's hapus. The Court adjourned till the 14th instant.

7—G. 2a.

G.—2a

50

Levin, Feiday, 14th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Henare te Apatari's Case —continued. Kebei te Panau, cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Te Baumatangi is an eel-pa. I never heard that the name Te Baumatangi extended to Waiwiri. It was not Peeti te Aweawe who told me that Whatanui's boundary was at Tau-o-te-ruru. Tamihana te Hoia told me. [Vol. 1 , page 115, Peeti's evidence :" I admit Whatanui to Baumatangi at Horowhenua," &c] I did not hear Peeti give that evidence in 1872. [Vol. 1, page 117, Kerei te Panau's evidence : "This is all I have to say. Peeti has said all."] That is true. I had forgotten. It was Te Aweawe and Peeti te Aweawe who arranged about Poroutawhao boundary. I did not come with them. Ido not know whether any Muaupoko were present. Te Aweawe did not tell me that any Muaupoko were present. [Vol. 1, page 115, Peeti te Aweawe's evidence : "I know the boundary of Ngatihuia land at Poroutawhao ; the boundary is at Ngatokorua," &c] It was before the Court of 1872 that Peeti te Aweawe fixed the boundary. I was not present. I heard that some Muaupoko were there, and Ngatuere Tawhao. I heard that Himiona te Hopu, Bawiri te Whiumairangi, Hoani Puihi, and others were there. Hineitohia may have been Ngarangiwhakaotia's first wife ; I do not know. Ido not know that Manuka Tarewa originally belonged to Ngatiapa, or that it was given to Ngarangiwhakaotia in exchange for a mat made by Hineitohia. I heard that a meeting was held at Horowhenua to discuss the ownership of Manuka Tarewa. The committee awarded the stone to Tawhati-a-henga because of his importunity, but it belonged to Meretene Whakaewa. I heard that the stone came into the possession of Tame Tawhati on the death of Tawhati-a-henga. I say that Te Aweawe was at Te Wi because he and his relatives always fought together. Tamati Maunu and his family killed Poaka, 1 have heard. I have heard that Te Uirangi killed Te Poa at Te Wi. Te Uirangi was the father of Te Bangimairehau. I have heard that Tawhati-a-henga killed Te Hononga, and that Warakihi killed Te Uira. Te Aweawe was a great chief. I have not heard that he killed any one at Te Wi. Aitupaoa was not a Bangitane. Be-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I have heard that it was Te Aweawe that first fixed the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. He asked Ngatihuia to return him his land, as I have previously described. The Ngatihuia left the matter to Topeora to decide. They all assembled in Huia meeting-house, and Topeora gave Te Aweawe the land and the people. He returned it and said, "Let the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko be fixed at Ngatokorua." Te Peeti afterwards came and confirmed the arrangement made by Te Aweawe; it was then he met Ngatuere. There was trouble about the boundary afterwards, and we all came down. Aperahama te Bautahi was our kaumatua. There was no more raruraru about the boundary before the Court sat. Topeora was a great chieftainess of Ngatitoa and Ngatiraukawa. No one could gainsay her. To Assessor : Tawhakahiku was a Bangitane. Aitupaoa was probably a Bangitane, inasmuch as Tawhakahiku addressed him as his teina. Ido not know that Papaitonga belonged to Aitupaoa. Ido not know the origin of Ngatimamoe. I think Te Beporoa is on this side of Papaitonga. I heard from my elders that the Ngatimamoe and Ngatihouhia were the original occupants of this land. Henare te Apatari : That is my case. Mr. Knocks's Case. Bia Hamueba sworn. Witness : I am a Ngatiwhano and Ngaiteao. I have known this land from infancy. I have a claim to it. I knew Mere Mionga. Her father, Tawhati, was a Muaupoko. After I was grown up I saw Mere Mionga for the first time. She came to see her father and remained here. I did not see her. I heard that she came with her husband. She told me so herself at Bangitikei. Ido not know anything of what took place at Karekare. I know Manihera te Bau. He lived at Horowhenua after his marriage with a Muaupoko woman. The first leases of Horowhenua were made secretly while we were living in Bangitikei. I do not know how the rents were distributed. My father and mother lived here continuously, but when I grew up I left the district. I was here when the first church was built. Himiona was the lay-reader. Manihera te Bau was here then. I knew his elder brother Pita; he lived at Otaki. Himiona te Hopu was an influential chief of Muaupoko. I remember when Muaupoko first put sheep on Horowhenua. Ido not know the date. They were placed at Mairua and all over the block. Koriri was captured by Ngatiraukawa, and taken to wife by some one of Ngatimaiota hapu. Pirihira Arahura was given in exchange for Koriri, so that the latter might return to her husband, Te Kaimaoa, who was living at Te Namuiti. Te Konihi told me this. All the Muaupoko were taken prisoners with Koriri. Their chief, Te Matangi, was the only one left. I have heard something about peace being made at Te Karekare, but it was disturbed afterwards. Ido not know who peace was made between. My right to this land is from Potangotango. I have a right by continuous occupation. I have much greater rights to this land than Mere Mionga. There is no comparison. Let her prove her rights. Manihera te Bau has no rights bo Horowhenua. He lived because he married a Muaupoko woman. He occupied under her rights. I cannot say whether the houses and cultivations of Manihera te Bau should be awarded to him.

51

G.— 2a

Rawiri Rota : No questions. H. te Apatari : No questions. H. Karaitiana : No questions. Mr. McDonald : No questions. Mr. Fraser : No questions. Sir W. Buller: No questions. Buihi Wuunu on former oath. Witness : My parents, Mere Mionga and Te Hauparoa, frequently came on to this land when the elders of Muaupoko were alive. I often return to it. My ancestor, Te Ngarue, occupied Horowhenua. Ido not know which part, but his descendant, Tawhati, owned Waiwherowhero. I do not know where Te Huikirangi lived. I know where his descendants Tawhati and Te Bangihiwinui lived. I cannot go beyond them. Te Waikiekie was Te Bangihiwinui's pa. He cultivated all over Horowhenua. He got food from all parts of the block. Tawhati and Te Herewith had kaingas just beyond where the Muaupoko settlement is. Tawhati was the owner of the land sold for township. Tawhati lived at Paringatai with Tanguru, Taueki, and many others. My father and mother lived and cultivated at Te Kawiu. They lived at Tawhati's kainga when I was a child. After I was grown up my mother and I used to come to Horowhenua. When we came to the tangihanga over Taueki my brother was taken ill. He died at Turakina after we returned there. I have frequently paid visits to my relatives at Horowhenua. My mother was not made prisoner. She married Te Hauparoa of her own free-will. I got some land in Horowhenua No. 3 through my tupuna Tawhati and my mother, Mere Mionga. I attended the Court of 1886 in Palmerston. There was nothing said then about our not getting any share in any other part of the block. I did not hear in 1886 that No. 3 was awarded to us as ahika. It was Taitoko and the tribe who arranged the partition. We were all made equal in No. 3. I claim my rights on the land. It is for the Court to say what the extent of my claim is. I deny that my mother was taken prisoner by Ngatikahungunu. She was never enslaved. . Taitoko and the descendants of Te Aweawe know this. I know Manihera te Bau. I first saw him at Horowhenua. He married Pirihira. I knew Himiona te Hopu ; he was a rangtira of Muaupoko, and had rights in Horowhenua. Rawiri Rota: No questions. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I used to come here before Taueki died. I saw Tamati Maunu here. Ido not know what right he had to Horowhenua as a Muaupoko, although he was an ancestor of mine. I did not see his sister Hinerangi, but I heard of her. I saw Mata Taria here. She married Hetariki. Bihipeti and Akuira are her children. Bihipeti lived here until she married. I know Te Paki te Hunga. We lived together at Ngatiapa. He may have returned here sometimes. I did not see him here. I suppose Bihipeti's elders knew they had a right to Horowhenua, or they would not have remained here. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I never lived at Horowhenua. My mother grew up here. She went away, but often returned. She cultivated at Te Kawiu for two years with her husband. Tawhati was a Ngatihine. I do not know origin of name. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Tawhati's first wife was Mango. After her death he married Pitauai. Mere Mionga was daughter of Mango, Makere, of Pitauai. Tawhati and Mango never lived at Whangaehu. Mango was a Ngatikokopu, not a Ngatiapa. She died here. It is not a fact that she died at Whangaehu. Mere Mionga died there. She went there from Horowhenua to see a sick relative, was taken ill, and died. We were all born at Turakina or Bangitikei, and have lived in that district all our lives. All my sister's children were born at Turakina. They live here permanently. One of them came here to bring food for Te Kupe meeting. We all got 105 acres each. Ido not think it was sufficient to satisfy our rights. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Wieihana Hunia on former oath. Witness: Manihera te Bau lived here with his wife and her relatives. They lived together amicably. Manihera te Bau and his wife and Himiona- te Hopu took care of me as a child. Manihera te Bau took part in matters connected with Horowhenua when I knew him. At Te Kupe meeting Manihera te Bau assisted Hunia and Muaupoko in resisting the claims of Ngatiraukawa. He also gave evidence for Kemp and Hunia in the Courts of 1872 and 1873 at Foxton. Another Ngatiraukawa, Bawiri Utukawa, abandoned Muaupoko and went over to the Ngatiraukawa side in 1870. Hunia became angry, and took his wife away from him. I saw Manihera te Bau working with Muaupoko against Ngatihuia about the Ngatokorua boundary, In 1890 Manihera te Bau gave evidence in Court for Kemp as against me. The reason Muaupoko called Manihera to give evidence was that he was acquainted with the history of the coming of Ngatiraukawa. I believe that Manihera lived at Horowhenua before the Treaty of Waitangi. If his brother-in-law, Himiona te Hopu, were alive I believe he would admit Manihera's rights from ahika. Himiona te Hopu and Hanita te Kowhai were men of rank. If Himiona te Hopu gave away any part of Horowhenua to Manihera and his relatives, in my opinion the gift would be valid. I attended the Palmerston Court in 1886. No. 3 was awarded to the Muaupoko, who had rights in Horowhenua. The area they received there was intended to be in full satisfaction of all their »hts. It was not intended

G.—2a

52

that those in No. 3 should have any share in any other part of the block. lam one of the owners of No. 3. Manihera te Bau was treated as a Muaupoko when the land was partitioned in 1886. Manihera has been appointed one of the successors of his late wife Pirihira. Ido not know whether he has received any portion of the rents of Horowhenua. I have heard tnat he grazed sheep on the block. Personally, I think that Manihera should be admitted into No. 11 as a matter of equity, and in consideration of his services. Rawiri Rota : No questions. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Manihera te Bau is one of the owners of No. 3. The arrangement in 1886 was that those in No. 3 were to get no more; but this Court is now inquiring into the rights to No. 11, which was awarded to two persons only in 1886. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I have not said, if I am admitted into No. 11 I will consider Manihera te Bau. He is entitled to part of Pirihira's share. He is one of her successors. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : Manihera is a very old man. He had no children by his Muaupoko wife. During her lifetime he enjoyed benefits from her land and that of her brother. He went to Otaki of his own accord. So far as Muaupoko are concerned, he might have remained at Horowhenua. If he is awarded a specific share it will go to his Ngatiraukawa relations at his death. I only say that he should be admitted out of aroha. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Te Miere is the adopted child of Manihera. She is Ihaia Taueki's daughter. It is generally known among Muaupoko that Miere was adopted by Manihera. She has lived with Manihera up to the present time. I have never heard that Himiona te Hopu made a gift of any part of Horowhenua to Manihera or any of his relatives. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Be-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I have not heard whether it was Pirihira or Manihera who adopted Te Miere, but she has always been with Manihera. I know Bihipeti Tamaki. Ido not know that she was adopted by Manihera. I never saw her living with him. To Assessor: I have not heard that Manihera lived here before the Treaty of Waitangi. I assume that he did, because he married Pirihira after Karekare. To Court: Himiona te Hopu could only give away his own lands, not those of Muaupoko. If a man of one tribe married a woman of another tribe, and there was no issue of the marriage, the wife's lands at her death reverted to her people. Himiona Kowhai on former oath. Witness: lam a Ngatipariri. I was brought up here. I know Manihera te Bau. He has lived here permanently as long as I can remember. I am familiar with the early leases of Horowhenua. I cannot say how the rents were divided. I only know about the portion received by my own family. Ido not know who made the first lease. Peene Tikara, Noa te Whata, and Te Kerehi put the first sheep on Horowhenua. They put them first at Weraroa, and they strayed to Watutua. Manihera te Bau grazed sheep on Horowhenua, but that was more recently. Ido not know whether Manihera ever received any of the Horowhenua rents. I never saw him take any. I saw the people he was living with drawing rents—Matene, Pioka, Bangirurupuni, and others. I cannot say that Manihera te Bau has any right to No. 11, because he is a Ngatiraukawa, and has only lived here on his wife's rights. I know Mere Mionga. She has some right. Her father belonged here ; that is why I said she has rights. I cannot say that her children have any rights, because they have not lived here. Rawiri Rota : No questions. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Hamuera Karaitiana : No questions. Mr. McDonald : No questions. Mr. J. M. Fraser : No questions. Sir W. Buller : No questions. To Assessor : I never heard of any gift to Manihera te Bau. He lived here because he married a Muaupoko woman. Ido not think any other Ngatiraukawa lived with him. The Court adjourned till the 15th instant.

Levin, Satueday, 15th May, 1897. • The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested, The Court adjourned till the 17th instant.

53

G.—2a

Levin, Monday, 17th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. Knocks's Case —continued. Mr. Knocks called Kereopa Tukumaru. Keeeopa Tukumabu sworn. Witness : lam a Ngatiraukawa. My hapu name is Ngatingarongo. I know the Horowhenua Block. I have heard of the fight at Karekare. The Ngatiraukawa took part in the fight there, but they did not go there for the purpose of fighting ; they went to divide Manawatu lands. They found women only at Te Paiaka and Hotuiti. They captured the women, who were Muaupoko and Bangitane. All Ngatiraukawa went on the expedition to Manawatu. The women who were captured were taken possession of by the men who captured them. Hori Whitiopai captured the wife of Te Baorao. The wife of Te Kaimaoa was taken by Pita te Pukeroa. The women were subsequently returned to their husbands. Shortly after the women were returned Pita Pukeroa lived at Horowhenua. One year after Pita Pukeroa came to live at Horowhenua we took up our residence at the mouth of the Hokio Stream. Te Whatanui was then living at Baumatangi, and Pita Pukeroa with Muaupoko. Ngatitoa attacked Muaupoko at Horowhenua while Pita Pukeroa was living here. Some of the Ngatiraukawa were with the Ngatitoa war-party. When the war-party recognised Pita they ceased firing. Bipia was one of the leaders of the war-party. Karanama was also with them. Ido not know who led the Ngatitoa party. The war-party returned to their homes at Kapiti, Otaki, and Porirua. We came to Horowhenua on the occasion referred to to scrape flax for Europeans. A man named Love bought it from us. He paid us in guns, ammunition, &c. Pita Pukeroa interested himself in persuading Muaupoko to prepare flax for sale. I often saw him here. After Pita Pukeroa left his Muaupoko wife Manihera te Bau married her, and came to Horowhenua to live. We all heard that when Pita Pukeroa married the daughter of Kaimaoa, Te Kaimaoa gave him some land at Horowhenua. The principal chiefs of Muaupoko at that time were Taueki and Tawhati. Afterwards I saw Te Bangihouhia. There were others chiefs of Muaupoko. I will not say that Pita te Pukeroa was a chief; he was a slave. I say so because he was an elder relative of mine. He was not a warrior. He was not afraid of Muaupoko, because they had given him one of their women as a wife. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness: I knew Taueki. He was a chief of Muaupoko. I do not know that he was ever taken prisoner by the war-parties who attacked him at Horowhenua. He and Te Whatanui lived together on terms of friendship. They made peace. Taueki asked Whatanui if he could protect him, &c. [Bepeats story given by other witnesses.] Taueki and Whatanui first made peace at Karekare. It was never disturbed by Ngatiraukawa. Ngatitoa caused complication by killing Takare. I think the final peace-making between Taueki and Whatanui took place here, but I am not sure. I cannot say who were living with Taueki when peace was made. I suppose Tawhati and the other Muaupoko chiefs were with him. I did not hear that Tanguru was with Taueki, nor did I see him at that time. I was not present when peace was made. I was in the habit of visiting Muaupoko at Horowhenua about the time of the peace-making, but I did not see Tanguru ; he was at Wanganui. I saw him here after the introduction of Christianity. I saw him here on two occasions. I have heard of Te Atua, but I did not hear that he was associated with Taueki in making peace. I heard that Te Bangihouhia wanted to kill Whatanui, but Taueki would not consent. Te Bangihouhia lived at Pukehou at that time. He came here because he had killed a relative of mine, and feared reprisals. Te Hotoki was the name of the man who was killed. All Muaupoko who had not been taken prisoners by Ngatitoa or left the district were present when Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace. I cannot give the names of the Muaupoko who were taken prisoners before peace was made. I do not know that Bangirurupuni was taken prisoner. I saw him here a long time ago. I never heard that Te Bangihouhia lived with Ngatitoa; he lived with Taueki and Te Whatanui. Ido not know what position this land would have been in if Taueki and Te Whatanui had not made peace. Ido not know whether in that case it would have come into the possession of Ngatiraukawa. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : Pita te Pukeroa lived with Muaupoko because he married Pirihira te Arahura. Te Kaimaoa gave her to Pita because he had captured her mother at Manawatu. According to Maori custom Pita would have a right to his wife's lands and personal property. If the Muaupoko have already given Manihera te Bau 105 acres, and part of his wife's interest, I do not know whether he should ask for any more. I leave that to the Court. I have heard of Tamati Maunu. Ido not know whether he had any rights to Horowhenua. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald." Witness : I was not at Karekare when peace was made there. I was quite young then. Ihakara Tukumaru was not there. Hori, Te Kowheto, Te Whatungaio, Te Hana Taikapua, and others went. They made peace with Bangitane and Muaupoko. Mahuri and Taiweherua were two of the chiefs of those tribes. They were on their way to attack the Ngatiraukawa at Waiwiri. I did not hear of any Ngatiapa. They heard that Ngatiraukawa had gone to Manawatu, and returned and met Ngati-

G.—2a

54

raukawa at Karekare. Peace was made there. I did not hear that Taueki was there. Te Whatanui was at Karekare when Takari was killed. Ngatitoa heard that Ngatiraukawa were away with Whatanui, and made a raid on Muaupoko. I cannot say whether the massacre at Waikanae was before or after the killing of Takari. Mahuri and Taiweherua were both killed at Waikanae. Te Aweawe escaped. Taiweherua was recognised by Ngatiraukawa as a chief of Muaupoko. If a man of one tribe marries a woman of another tribe, and lives with her people, and both die without issue, the wife's lands would go to either his or her relatives. Botoatara was shortly after Karekare. Our defeat there was avenged. I was one of the avenging party. Te Hakeke was with us Tanguru was not. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I belong to the same hapu as Manihera te Bau by one line of descent. lam aware that Manihera te Bau has been admitted into Ngatiraukawa lands —those that he was entitled to, but Horowhenua was his permanent kainga. Ido not know which Ngatiraukawa block he has shares in. I believe he has succeeded to his brother's interests. I remember Bangihouhia living at Pukehou. I have seen Kaewa, who married Te Hakeke. She lived at Bangitikei. All my hapus heard that some part of Horowhenua, or the whole of it, had been given to Pita te Pukeroa. Te Kaimaoa made the gift. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Be-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : In my opinion the relatives of Pirihira te Arahura would inherit her property, and the relatives of Manihera te Bau would get his. This is Maori custom. To Assessor: Manihera te Bau lived at Otaki before he married Pirihira. I do not know where he married her. Manihera te Bau was at Te Kuititanga. He lived at Horowhenua before that. I did not hear of boundaries of gift to Pita te Pukeroa. Ido not say that Manihera te Bau is entitled to share in Horowhenua because of his long occupation. I leave that to be decided by the Court. Te Bangihouhia came here before Haowhenua. He fled here from Pukehou. I did not see any Muaupoko in our pa at Otaki at time of Horowhenua, but Muaupoko, Bangitane, Ngatiraukawa, and Ngatiapa were united at that time. Mr. Knocks : That closes my case. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case. Hamuera Karaitiana called Bihipeti Tamaki. Bihipeti Tamaki on former oath. Witness : I can give the names of the kaingas occupied by my elders and myself. I will first refer to kaingas on this side of lake. Kouturoa was the first kainga occupied on this side of lake. Tamati Maunu and his son-in-law, Hetariki, lived and cultivated at Kouturoa. Others of Ngatipariri lived and worked there—the parents of Himiona Kowhai and others. I cannot remember all. Bawiri and Hariata Tinotahi's sister, who married Hoani Puihi, used to cultivate there also. All the Ngatipariri cultivated at Kouturoa. I never heard of any disputes among them while I was there. After I left the Muaupoko burnt Whatanui's houses there. Paenoa: A kainga at south end of lake. I never saw any of Ngatihuia, Ngaiteao or Ngaitamarangi working at Kouturoa or Paenoa. The same people worked at Paenoa as at Kouturoa in my time. Te Waikoukou :At south end of lake ; occupied by Hanita Kowhai and Ngatipariri. Otaewa Kainga: Occupied by Hanita Kowhai and Bawiri te Whiumairangi; it is near lake, south of Hokio Stream. Tatearero: A mahinga; Tamati Maunu and his sons-in-law—Hetariki, Bawiri, and Henare Hanuhanu—cultivated there. Te Makomako : A cultivation ; Tamati Maunu and his sons-in-law and others of Ngatipariri worked there ; Hanita Kowhai also. Tutohu: A cultivation of Tamati Maunu's; his sons-in-law worked there with him. Ngurunguru: A kainga and cultivation; the people who worked there were Ngaiteao—Wereta Kakiwa, Matene Pakauwera, Warakihi, and others. Te Kapa: A cultivation; the same people worked there as at Ngurunguru in my time. Te Kawiu: A cultivation; Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, Ngaitamarangi, all worked there. All Muaupoko cultivated together after the troubles ceased. Te Matenga Tinotahi cultivated at Te Kawiu. A piece of land was given to him there to cultivate ; it is called Te Iwiroa. Te Wa Tutua: A cultivation; Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, Ngaitamarangi all cultivated there; Te Matenga and Tamati Maunu worked with them. A plot of land was given to Te Matenga there to cultivate, called Te Pora. Mairua: A cultivation; the same hapus cultivated there. There were many other cultivations ; 1 cannot remember them all. When they cultivated the places I have mentioned they returned to Te Bae-o-te-karaka, Tapuata, and Paringatai after work was finished. Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, and Ngaitamarangi all lived together, and attended the same place of worship. Ngatipariri lived by themselves, but mingled with the other hapus when meetings took place. There was a cultivation called Te Hiha near the kaingas of the three hapus. It was given to Te Matenga, and his grandchildren cultivate it now. The three hapus lived together amicably. I never heard of their attempting to turn each other off. If any of them wanted a cultivation it was given. The reason Ngatipariri lived to the south and the other hapus to the north of the block is that the southern part was given to Pariri, so I have heard. I have heard there was a boundary between Pariri and Te Bongopatahi, but I cannot remember all the names along it. It commenced at Hokiopuni, on south side of Hokio ; thence to Tirotirowhetu ; thence to Ohenga, Patoitoi, Te Koropu, Tutohu, Te Umutawa-a-pariri, Te Urunga-o-huatau, Te Arapaepae ; thence to the summit of Tararua. I heard that Bongopatahi and Pariri laid down this boundary between them. Ido not know why they did so. I cannot point out the places on the map, but I can on the land. The Ngatipariri are Hamua, but nearly all the Hamua who were connected with Ngatipariri are dead. Tamati Maunu was one, Hanita Kowhai another

a.—2a

55

1 heard from from my elders that Te Bongopatahi and Pariri were the ancestors who owned this land. I have heard Puakiteao mentioned in Courts on both sides of the range. I never heard until this Court that he had rights to this land. Only the descendants of Puakiteao who have married the descendants of Te Bongopatahi and Pariri have any claim to Horowhenua. I have heard that all Muaupoko are descended from Te Bongopatahi, Kawainga, or Pariri, but I cannot trace them all. I cannot name any hunting- or fishing-places or fern-root-gathering places belonging to my ancestors, but I heard that they had such places. Ido not know anything about the cultivations near Waiwiri. There was a mahinga at Mahoenui called Pekapeka. I heard that it was used by Te Awhea and Te Waikoroki, elders of Tamati Maunu. Muhunoa was at one time a mahinga kai of Muaupoko. Ido not know the names of the other mahinga in that locality. Hetariki Takapo was my father. He had no right here. Lived here when he married my mother. Ani Kanara Marakaia has no right here, either by ancestry or occupation. Ani Kanara Tihore: No right by ancestry ; Kerehi brought her here from Porirua. Aperahama Bangiwetea I object to because I never saw him here. I have no desire to exclude any one, but, Mauaupoko having objected to all who have no occupation, I put in a list of those I did not see when I lived here. Hamuera Potau :No right by occupation ; never saw him here ;he married Unaiki, daughter of Hereora Taueki. Harata te Koete, Hehe Whakaka, Henare Mahuika, Hoani Meihana, Hori te Mawae, Hori Muruahi, Hutana Whakaka, Irihapeti Ihaia, Karaitiana te Korou, Porana Muruahi, Peeti te Aweawe, Batima Potau, Tahana Muruahi, Tamati Muruahi, Tamati Taopuku, Waiteri Kakiwa, Te Whatahoro : No occupation. Harirota, Manihera te Bau, Matiaha Mokai, Marakaia Tawaroa, Te Miha-o-te-rangi, Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, Matina Karaitiana, Miriama Piripi, and Wi Waaka :No right. Ido not know whether the Muruahi family can claim descent from my ancestors —Bongopatahi, Kawainga, or Pariri. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I claim a right to this land from Pariri. I claim a right over the whole block to the northern side from Te Bongopatahi. Te Bongopatahi owned the northern end of the block, and as far as Ngatokorua; the rest of his land has been taken by Ngatiraukawa. I heard that Himiona te Hopu first fixed the boundary between Muaupoko and Ngatihuia. There was a dispute about this boundary afterwards. Ido not know which side commenced it. I heard that Te Peeti and Ngatuere settled that dispute. I heard that Pariri was the ancestor for No. 11 when I was living here. Ido not know what ancestor was set up for Horowhenua at Court of 1873. I heard that Muaupoko set up Kupe. I did not hear that Kemp brought down the line from Puakiteao. Hoani Meihana may have given a genealogy through Puakiteao, but I have not heard that he did so. I did not hear that Pariri was mentioned as one of the ancestors. The Ngatipariri did not set up a case from Pariri because they were united with Kemp at that time. The Hamua occupied Papaitonga. Toheriri, Takare, and Paipai were Hamua. Bongopatahi and Pariri acquired this land by having lived on it. Their descendants have also occupied it. There were people on it before these ancestors' time, but Ido not know who they were. I heard that it was Te Bongopatahi and Pariri who laid down the boundary between them. Kawainga, I heard, married a Ngatikahungunu and went south to live. Ido not know how her descendants got their right. Tamati Maunu told me the takes to this land. He did not tell me that Pariri's right was from Hikaotaota. She derived her right from both parents. Ido not know whether Ngataitoko or Hikaotaota had the greater right to Horowhenua. I have not heard that Pariri lived here because she married Te Hukui. My ringakaha is that Muaupoko prevented Ngatiraukawa getting possession of Horowhenua. They kept the Ngatiraukawa at Muhunoa on the south, and the Ngatihuia at Poroutawhao on the north. I do not know anything about the fights, but Ido know that Muaupoko kept the land, and prevented Ngatiraukawa from getting possession of it. Ido not know boundaries of claim made by Muaupoko in 1872 (Te Bangirurupuni and others). Ido not know that any of Muaupoko disagreed with the boundaries claimed by Te Bangirurupuni. They may have. It is quite likely, because it did not comprise the whole of Muaupoko lands. I did not hear that Taueki kept the land between Ngatokorua and Hokio for himself. I never heard that Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace, or that they laid down a boundary between them. I heard that Taueki gave Te Whatanui an. eel-pa at Baumatangi. I did not attend Te Kupe meeting. Did not hear Huru say that meeting was for the purpose of discussing the boundary between Taueki and Whatanui. Did not hear that Kawana Hunia objected to the boundary at Tau-o-te-ruru and attempted to shift it to Hokio. My occupation has been from ancestors down to my parents and myself. I left my parents here when I went away. I did not hear that Tamati Maunu became a dependent of Whatanui. The Court adjourned till the 18th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 18th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case—continued. Bihipeti Nieeaha's cross-examination by Bawiri Bota continued. Witness : Tamati Maunu lived at Horowhenua as an independent chief. He was not living here under the protection of Whatanui. I did not hear that Te Whatanui captured Tamati Maunu at Karekare. I did not hear that Tamati was brought here and placed at Otoi by Te Whatanui. Ido not know whether Makomako was one of Whatanui's cultivations. I saw Tamati Maunu working there. I have not heard that Tatearero was Te Whatanui's cultivation. I have not seen

a._2a

56

Waretini working there. He lived with Ngatipariri at Kouturoa. I did not hear from my eiders that Kouturoa was cultivated by Te Whatanui and family only. I have already said that they lived with Muaupoko. Ido not know by what right Te Whatanui lived with Muaupoko. 1 heard that Muaupoko burnt the houses of Waretini at Kouturoa, and that he went to Hokio to live. I believe that he was forced by Muaupoko to go there—by Muaupoko I mean Kawana Hunia and the others who burnt the houses. I was not here when Waretini was driven away from Kouturoa, but my brothers and sisters were. I approved of their action. They were turning Waretini off their land. Kawana Hunia had previously fixed the boundary. The people who burnt Waretini's houses all had rights to the land by ancestry and permanent occupation, Te Pakite Hunga, Te Kerehi, and Biwai te Amo took part in the burning. Kawana Hunia was not a permanent occupant of Horowhenua, but he used to come here. Ihaka Pakeha lived here permanently. He was a nephew of Te Bangihouhia. Te Paki's elders lived permanently at Horowhenua. He went away after the troubles were over, but his sister remained here. I heard that most of the Muaupoko were driven away to the South Island. Ido not know that Te Paki was born in the South Island. I have not heard where he was born. Te Bangirurupuni was a descendant of Te Bongopatahi. I cannot explain why he included Pariri's lands in his application for investigation of title to Horowhenua. I did not hear. Ido not know why Tamati Maunu did not burn Whatanui's houses; probably because they were on friendly terms in those days. Whatanui had not asserted any right to the land then. I am unable to say why Tamati Maunu did not prevent Muaupoko from burning Watene's houses. I suppose it was because Whatanui's descendants were then claiming a right to the land. Tamati Maunu may have warned Te Watene that Muaupoko were coming to burn his houses and destroy his crops. I have not heard. It would be proper for him to do so, and would not be an acknowledgment of the rights of the Whatanuis. I cannot give the names of all the Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, and Ngaitamarangi who worked at the cultivations I named yesterday. They had a right to work them from Matene Paukawera, Bangirurupuni, Te Kerehi, Wereta, and others, who gave Te Matenga his cultivations. They were Ngatipariri, descendants of Te Bongo. The Ngaiteao, Ngatihini, and Ngaitamarangi had cultivations all round the lake. I have heard that they all derived their rights from Te Bongopatahi and Pariri. I have heard of the post named Temou. It is at the mouth of Hokio Stream. Ido not know who erected it. I did not hear that any of my ancestors interfered with it. I do not know who of Muaupoko were taken prisoners. I know that my ancestor was not captured. Nearly all Muaupoko were hereheres before Christianity. After Christianity was introduced they felt that they were safe, and returned. Warakihi, Tangaru, Tamati Maunu, and Ngarangiwhakaotia were the persons who I heard were instrumental in getting Muaupoko back on to the land, but they were not alone. All Muaupoko assisted in bringing about a better state of things. I cannot trace all Muaupoko from Te Bongopatahi or Pariri. There are many other cultivations and hunting-places on Horowhenua besides those I have mentioned, but I forget their names. Ido not confine my claims to those I have mentioned. I have no right to Hokio Stream. Hariata Tinotahi and Iritana are the only persons of our party who have rights there. I have no eel-pas in the stream. Tamati Maunu had. none, because the boundary laid down by his ancestor excluded the Hokio Stream. I assume that Hariata Tinotahi and Iritana had a right to fish in Hokio because they did so. I have not heard that they got their right from Buatapu. Hanita Kowhai had apa in Hokio Stream. I suppose his father used it. Ido not know from whom the right came. I heard that Hanita Kowhai bought the eel-pa from Te Whatanui, but that was after the troubles were over. I have not heard of Ngatipariri having objected to Whatanui selling the pa. Ido not deny the rights of Taueki to Horowhenua, because he was a Muaupoko. I do not know how he derived his rights, but I have heard that he was a descendant of Te Bongopatahi. Tanguru was not a descendant of Pariri; he was of Kawainga. I admit that he was descended from Puakiteao. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Taueki gave the eel-pa to Whatanui which he afterwards sold to Hanita. Taueki gave him the pa only ;he did not give Whatanui any land. Name of the eel-pa was Baumatangi. Ido not know whether this was the pa Hanita bought from Te Whatanui. I cannot trace my descent from Kupe, from whom this land was claimed in 1873. Horowhenua was awarded to the Muaupoko who could prove occupation. Puakiteao's descendants are scattered all over the country. Some of them claimed a right to Ngapaeruru through Puakiteao. Hoani Meihana claimed Ngapaeruru through Puakiteao. Hoani Meihana and Hanita te Aweawe also set up Puakiteao in Puketoi. Many of the descendants of Puakiteao are living at Tamaki. I do not know by what right Te Peeti te Aweawe was admitted into Tipapakuku. I heard from my elders that Te Uamairangi and Ngatiupokoiri came here. I heard that it was through Kotuku they came; Ido not know why they came, or who attacked them, or whether they were attacked at all. Ido not know where Te Uira was killed. The only Te Uira I know of was killed by Warakihi. She was a Ngatiraukawa. I have heard Muaupoko speaking of Taueki having asked Te Whatanui if he could protect him. Taueki lived under Whatanui's protection. Tamati Maunu did not. Taueki gave Whatanui the eel-pa as a return for the protection afforded him. -I have not heard that Noa te Whata bought an eel-pa from Te Whatanui. I have not heard of Te Aweawe and his son coming here to ask Ngatihuia to give back the land they had encroached upon. I heard that Peeti te Aweawe and Ngatuere came to Ngatihuia about the boundary. I did not hear that Te Peeti came because he had a right to the land. He came to settle the dispute about the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. I have only heard of one visit by Te Peeti. Have not heard that his Bangitane Tribe came with him to Poroutawhao. I have heard that Muaupoko and Bangitane were defeated, but their lands were not taken. I refer to the killing of Muaupoko and Bangitane at Waikanae. I cannot name any other occasion on which Muaupoko and Bangitane were defeated. I heard that Peeti te Aweawe

57

G.—2a

attended the Kupe meeting. I do not know that he came because he had a right to the land. I did not hear so. Many attended the meeting who had no right to the land. I heard that he came to hear the discussions. If Peeti had had a right to the land the Muaupoko would not have put him on the hills. He has' no right to Horowhenua, although he was put in the title by the Court at Foxton in 1873. Te Peeti has not even an ancestral right to Horowhenua. I attended, the Court of 1873 in Foxton. I did not give evidence as to my rights. We were all united against Ngatiraukawa then. Kawana Hunia gave evidence on our behalf. Kemp also gave evidence. Ido not know any others. [Beminded.] I remember now that Peeti and Hoani Meihana gave evidence at that Court, with the result that their names are in the title. I did not hear that Te Aweawe fetched his relative, Ani Tihore, from Ngatitoa, and placed her on the lands of their ancestors. Bangitane and Muaupoko are related, but their rights to lands are not the same. I heard that Kerehi brought Ani Tihore here from Porirua. They are related, but I cannot give the degree of relationship. Ido not know where my ancestress Pariri died, but her descendants lived and died here. Tamati Maunu and his sister Hinerangi both died here; so did my mother. I heard that Pariri's head was taken to the Hamua ana at Buamahanga, near Masterton. Ido not know where his body was buried. Te Bangirurupuni and some other descendants of Kawainga were captured by the ancestors of Wi Parata at Waikanae. Te Bangirurupuni had a kainga there. He had rights to land there and here also. I did not hear from my elders that my ancestor Tupatanui was killed at Paekakariki. I never saw Hoani Meihana living or cultivating at Horowhenua. Ido not know by what right he would live here. He has no right here, or Muaupoko would not have put him on the hills. Neither Peeti te Aweawe nor Hoani Meihana have any right to this land, either by ancestry or occupation. I have heard that Hoani Meihana is a descendant of Tirio; he has set up claims from that ancestor in other districts. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I am about forty-eight years of age. Christianity was introduced before I was born. • I was married when I was sixteen years of age. I often visited Horowhenua after my marriage. We lived here a year or two after our marriage. I have a whakapapa of all the descendants of Pariri, Bongopatahi, and Kawainga. I do not know any Muaupoko who could prove it. I have it in my possession. I have no objection to hand it to the Court. I cannot say which was the first marriage between the descendants of Pariri and Puakiteao. Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, and Ngaitamarangi are all descendants of Te Bongopatahi. Only some of Hamua have rights here. The rights of the others are on the other side of the range. Te Angiimua was a descendant of that section of Hamua who had rights here. He married Hineitohua, a daughter of Pariri. Bangihikaka was his first child of that marriage. Bangihikaka united all the lines from Kupe. I did not hear from any elders that Te Biunga lived here. She may have. I assume that she lived here because her descendants are here. Ido not know who they are. Ido not know who Te Biunga's husband was. I know of a Whareao in my whakapapa. I heard she married Taniwha, from the Kopani line. Whareao was a child of Puanga, and was a Hamua. I never saw the elder Whatanui. I saw his son Tutaki. Ido not know which Whatanui was given the eel-pa. I suppose it would be the elder. Kawana Hunia used to come here frequently on visits when I was young. Te Bangirurupuni was here. I saw Wirihana Tarewa :he lived here permanently. Inia Tamaraki I saw here, but he lived at Bangitikei. I saw Paki te Hunga here. Te Kerehi Mitiwaha lived here permanently. I saw Ihaka te Bangihouhia and Matene Pakauwera here. Pene Tikara and Himiona Taiweherua I saw here. I did not see Pire Tikara. Karaitiana Tarawahi and Biwai te Amo lived here. Wirihana Hunia was here as a child, and went away to Bangitikei. Noa Tawhati, Petera te Ha, Hopa Heremaia, Buka Hanuhanu, Himiona Kowhai, Akuira Takapo, and Hapemana Tohu lived here in my youth. I did not see Tiaki Tikara here. I saw Maaka Ngorongoro here, but he lived at Bangitikei. Mata Huikirangi, Heni Wairangi, Hariata Tinotahi, Pirihira te Bau, Iritana, Wiki Hanita, Merehira te Marika, Mereana Matao, Bawinia Matao, Unaiki Taueki, and Paranihia Biwai all lived here when I was here. All the people I saw living here had an ancestral right to the land. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Tamati Maunu gave me my whakapapa. He could not read or write. He dictated it to his son-in-law, my father. The copy he wrote became dilapidated, and my husband copied it. I saw Nireaha copying the document. I have always been on Wirihana Hunia's side, and against Kemp and the Tribe of Muaupoko. I did not support Wirihana's theory that No. 11 was for Kemp and Warena only in 1890. I heard Wirihana say in his evidence that it was. I did not object to Wirihana's theory because I was allied with him, although I knew in 1886 that Kemp and Warena were trustees for the tribe. I did not often go into the Court that sat at Palmerston in 1890. I cannot write my name. I do not remember making my mark on a petition in 1891. I never saw it. I have not signed any petition to Parliament about Horowhenua. [Petition read.] I have never seen that petition. I did not hear that it was presented to Parliament. My name was signed by some one else. lam still on Wirihana's side, although we have separate cases. I am trying to get into the land "against the tribe. I did not join the tribe because I do not know that the land is theirs yet. I have not heard that the two certificated owners have handed it over to the tribe. My two daughters are among the rerewaho. They were born at Hawera, and have lived there all their lives. I left Horowhenua in 1867. I was born at Castlepoint, but came here when I was quite young. My father had rights there, not my mother. Mata was my mother. She was the daughter of Matenga, who belonged to Ngatirangi, of Porirua. Waikawa was his kainga. Waikorokiu was a Ngatiapa. She was the mother of Hinerangi and Tamati Maunu. My objection to the Muruahi family is based on the fact that I did not see them living here. I have heard of Tomo, and that he lived

B—G. 2a.

G.—2a

58

permanently on this land. Muruahi was a brother of Tomo. Ido not know who Puanga married. She may have married Tangata, of Tamaki. I never heard that they lived at Tamaki. Whareao and Matuku were the children of Puanga. Matuku married Pokai. I do not know where he belonged to. Tamati Maunu taught me the genealogy I have given to the Court. Matuku's children were Te Warakihi and Maheua. I have never heard of the killing of Korokawehe. I never heard that Warakihi and Maheua fled here from Tamaki on account of the killing of Korokawehe. I have not heard that, they came here from Tamaki. They never lived at Tamaki. I heard that they had rights at Mangatainoka. The Court adjourned till the 20th instant.

Levin, Thuesday, 20th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case —continued. Bihipeti Nieeaha's cross-examination by Mr. Fraser continued. Witness : The book I speak of is in possession of the owner. I have given the whakapapa to the Court. Amiria copied it from the book. Nireaha has the book. It is at our kainga in the Forty-mile Bush. Amiria made out the whakapapa here. I have not heard of Take or Te Hape. I have heard of Baukatauri; Ido not know where he lived. I have heard of Te Aopineki; I do not know where he lived. I have not heard that he was the uncle of Whareao, or that he lived at Horowhenua. I have not heard of Bangikamanao; do not know that he was a brother of Whareao. I have not heard of Nukureia. I have heard of Hineawhitia; she lived at Horowhenua. .1 did not hear that she was a cousin of Whareao. She was some relative of his, because they were both related to Turanga, who was a younger brother of Puanga. I cannot trace Hineawhitia or Whareao from Turanga. I heard that Baniera te Whata and Te Heke and Te Wai are the descendants of Turanga. I knew Buta te Kiri; she was one of the principal women of Muaupoko, and lived at Horowhenua; she took a leading part in the proceedings before the Court of 1873. I said, in reply to Mr. McDonald, that all Muaupoko were descended from Kawainga, Bongopatahi, or Pariri. I did not refer to Te Kiri—l meant the majority of Muaupoko. I cannot say whether Te Angiimua and his descendants were known as Hamua. Ido not know what their hapu name was. I know the descendants of Te Angiimua, but I cannot trace them; but I know those who have rights to this land. I heard that Bangihikaka's principal kainga was at Horowhenua, and that he bewitched Te Hengahenga for stealing from his cultivations. I heard that Bangihikaka came from the south to Horowhenua. I have not heard that he was disturbed in his occupation of Horowhenua, because he had no right here. I heard that he fled to Wairarapa after bewitching Hengahenga. I heard also that he remained at Wairarapa and died there. I do not know who his child was. I have heard that Hunia was his nearest relative. Kaewa was Hunia's mother. Bangihouhia was her brother. Their permanent kainga was at Waitawa before the Ngatiraukawa took it. They then came here. I have not heard that Kaewa was taken prisoner at Waitawa. I have not heard, that Hotoke was killed. I do not know where Kaewa married Hakeke, but he was her husband. I heard that they proceeded to Bangitikei, and lived there permanently. Kaewa died there. I have heard that Te Bangihouhia went from here to Bangitikei; do not know where he died. I have seen Ihaka te Bangihouhia living here. Heard that he went to live at Bangitikei; do not know where he died. I do not attend tangihanga over Muaupoko chiefs. Kawana Hunia's permanent place of residence was Parewanui, Bangitikei. He was in the habit of making frequent visits to Horowhenua when I was living here. I was very young, and did not know very much about his movements. He went to Wellington sometimes. I never saw Kawana Hunia cultivating at Horowhenua. He used to come to Hanita Kowhai's house. Ido not know that he had a house on Horowhenua until he built Kupe. Wirihana Hunia was a tamaiti whangai of Hanita Kowhai and Te Bangirurupuni; he lived with them as such. He had returned to Bangitikei when I married—long before I married. Ido not know how old he was when he left. Wirihana's brothers and sisters have not lived at Horowhenua so far as I know ; nor have Te Bina's children. Wirihana came to my house on Tuesday evening ; he did not ask me to hide the fact that I had not signed the petition. He did not refer to the petition. I did not tell Wirihana that I could not conceal the fact as I had already sworn in Court that I had not signed the petition. I heard from some of Muaupoko and from Tamati Maunu of the boundary between Bongopatahi and Pariri. The latter gave me the names along the boundary. I have forgotten some of them. When we came with Ngatikahungunu to return the land to Muaupoko, Karaitiana pointed out the boundary between Pariri and Te Bongopatahi. This was before the Court of 1886. Karaitiana Tarawahi mentioned the names on the boundary to the Ngatikahungunu at a spot near where we now are. He said it ran from mouth of Hokio to Ohenga ; thence to Koropu, Tutohu, Te Umutawa-a-pariri, Te Awa-a-tatau, Tu-o-te-Kiekie; and thence to the range. I heard Karaitiana say this. I remember you examining in Palmerston in 1891, and you asking me to give you the names along the boundary. I was not allowed to give the names then. I did not choose to give them. [Vol. 14, page 255 ; Witness :"I do not know what words he made use of, but he pointed out the boundary."] I did not think it necessary to give the names then. I heard Karaitiana Tarawahi give his evidence in the Court of 1891. [Vol. 14, page 214 : Karaitiana Tarawahi (denies knowledge of boundary).] I did not hear Paki te Hunga say in Court that the Pariri boundary had been cut.

59

G.—2a

Cross-examined by Mr, Knocks. Witness : I know Manihera te Bau. I lived with him and his wife. I did not hear that he received any portion of the rent for Horowhenua. I did not live with him long. I heard that Paipai was Hinerangi's first husband. I heard from Ani Patene. I do not know where Paipai lived. I heard that Hinerangi married Maheua, of Hamua, who had rights to Papaitonga. Ido not know where Maheua died. He may have been killed at Waiorua. I did not hear that Hinerangi was taken prisoner. I derive my right from her. Hinerangi's third husband was Te Matenga, of Ngatirangi. He lived at Porirua. I suppose they met here. Ngatirangi are not a hapu of Muaupoko. Hetariki belonged to the Hamua section of Ngatikahungunu. I married out of the Muaupoko Tribe. I have not cultivated here since I left the district with my husband, but my elders and my sisters have. I have only been here on visits since I married. I have heard of Mere Mionga ; she was half-sister of Makere te Bou. Neither her children nor grandchildren have occupied Horowhenua. I have a right to this land by occupation as well as by ancestry. Ido not know Mere Mionga's takes. If her ancestors occupied as permanently as mine did, then she would have the same right that I have. Be-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: All Muaupoko know that I have cultivated at the places I have named. Hariata Tinotahi, Mereana Matao, Bawinia Matao, Ngataahi, and Te Kerehi all know the cultivations I have spoken of. Himiona Kowhai and Paranihia Biwai also know them. They also know of the boundary between Te Bongopatahi and Pariri, and that I derive my rights to this land from Pariri. lam willing that the persons I have named should be called to give evidence as to the cultivations and the boundary. To Mr. Knocks (through Court) : Manihera and his wife cultivated at Te Kawiu and other places on the block. To Assessor : I heard that Tamati Maunu remained here between 1830 and 1839, but I did not hear that he took part in the peace-making between Taueki and Te Whatanui. Te Maunu's pas were at Waipata and Pukeiti. Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were killed at Papaitonga. I cannot say whether they would have been killed if they had joined in the peace-making, and remained within the boundaries laid down by Taueki and Whatanui. I suppose Te Bangihouhia fled to Muaupoko for protection after killing Hotoki. I do not know. Ido not know bond of friendship between Tamati Maunu and Te Whatanui, but I know that Bawiri te Hutukawa, of Ngatiraukawa, married Tamati Maunu's daughter; possibly that is the reason that Whatanui Tutaki befriended Tamati. Paeanihia Biwai sworn. Witness :I am one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have a right to it by ancestry and occupation. I derive my right from Te Bongopatahi. Te Rongopatahi Tapitaonga Te Whakamahi -— Puri ! I I l Iria Te Korenga Te Haha I | Wereta Pahi | | Oriwia Maiangi Kokota | (in rerewaho list) | -^ Paranihia Riwai Himiona Taiwherua Maihi Matenga (no issue) Pirihira Hautapu I Pirihira Hautapu I know the cultivations of my ancestors and elders on this block. I can also give names of cultivations now in use by us. Te Bae-o-te-karaka and Otoi were cultivations. Ido not know what food the ancestors collected there. I can only speak of my own time. Poumaru : A cultivation ; my parents cultivated at those places with the other Muaupoko. Pipiriki: A cultivation of Ngatipuri and Ngaiteao. Pakahori: A cultivation near Pipiriki, used by the same hapus. Te Hiha : A cultivation of Ngatipuri, Ngaiteao, and Ngatipariri. ' Whatawhata Kaahu : A cultivation ; the same hapus used it. Whare o Tauira : A cultivation, used by my parents and Ngatipariri. Whitiki: A cultivation, used by Wereta. Mairua: A cultivation, used by Ngatipuri and Ngaiteao hapus. Te Watutua: A cultivation, used by my ancestors and parents. Te Kawiu: A cultivation of my ancestors and parents. Te Iwiroa: A cultivation ; my ancestors and parents cultivated there. Te Kapa : Worked by Ngaiteao and Ngatipuri, descendants of Bongopatahi. I cannot give the names of all the persons who cultivated at these places. I know that my parents did. Te Patiki was a settlement where my parents resided and cultivated. Iria, Te Haha, and others cultivated there. Ngurunguru : A landing-place for canoes on the lake-shore. Te Waware : A cultivation near Ngurunguru ; descendants of Bongopatahi worked there. Tirotiro : A kainga and cultivation. Iria, Te Haha, and other descendants of Te Bongopatahi lived and worked there. Te Waitui: A landingplace ; there are cultivations on banks of lake near it; Ngatipuri and Ngaiteao worked there. Tutohu :My ancestors and parents cultivated there—lria, Te Haha, and others. This was on their boundary. Tekamu : A settlement and cultivation of my ancestors and parents. Te Hawera : A kainga and cultivation of descendants of Bongopatahi. I have not cultivated at the two lastnamed places. Wereta and Himiona have,,. Namuiti and Karapu were the pas of Ngaiteao and

G.—2a

60

Ngatipuri; other hapus occupied these pas, but I cannot name them. Te Puata: A kainga; Makere and others lived there. Paringatai: A settlement of Muaupoko. I know some of the descendants of Puakiteao —those who are living here. I heard that he was a Ngatikahungunu ancestor. My parents did not tell me that I was a descendant of Puakiteao. I have heard of Potangotango, but Ido not know anything about him. My parents and others who are dead told me that Te Bongopatahi was my right to this land. No one now living has told me that Te Bongopatahi was my take to Horowhenua. I have not spoken to any one now living about it. I have seen my parents working at some of the cultivations I have named, and I have heard that they worked at the others. Te Matenga Tinotahi worked at Te Iwiroa. It was given to him to cultivate by Wereta and his brothers. I saw him working there, and at Te Watutua also ; it was given to him by the same people. A cultivation at Te Mairua was set apart by Wereta for Te Matenga to crop. He had no right to the land, and that is why places were set apart for him to cultivate. I know the boundary spoken of by Bihipeti. It was &rohe tuturu between Bongopatahi and Pariri. Kouturoa was a kainga and cultivation ; it belonged to Tamati Maunu and others of his hapu. Paenoa : A cultivation used by Tamati Maunu and his descendants. I know Te Waikoukou ; it was a kainga. Hanita Kowhai and others lived there. Ido not know that there was any cultivation there. There may have been. I know Otaewa well. It was a permanent kainga and cultivation of Hanita ma. It has not been cultivated lately. Bawiri and Hoani Puihi worked there with Hanita before I went to Wairarapa, and since my return. They are Ngatipariri. Tatearero was a kainga and cultivation. Tamati Maunu and his descendants occupied it. Te Makomako : I saw Tamati Maunu and his wife cultivating there, also their children. I beard that my ancestors were the owners of Tutohu. I cannot say that all four hapus worked there ; I did not see them, or hear that they did. Tamati Maunu and his sons-in-law lived and cultivated together. There are six pas on islets in the Horowhenua. Te Waikiekie and Te Boha-a-te-kawau are at the Koropu end. Waipata and Te Pukeiti are also at south end of lake. Te Namuiti and Te Karapa are at north end of lake. Ido not know the names of the hapus that occupied them. The whole of Muaupoko defended them. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I agree with the whole of the evidence given by Bihipeti Nireaha. Wereta imparted to me some of the knowledge I possess relating to this land; the rest I have gained by experience. Te Bongopatahi's land was bounded on the north by what is now Ngatihuia land. Te Bongopatahi fixed that boundary. I do not know who owned the territory to the northward of it. I never heard of Ngaitamarangi until the Horowhenua Commission sat. Ido not know the origin of the name Ngaiteao. Wereta and his family were known as Ngatipuri at Horowhenua. Puri was an ancestor but not a descendant of Te Bongopatahi; she was a Hamua, and married Te Whakamai, a grandson of Bongopatahi. Pipiriki was cultivated by all Muaupoko, Ngatihine, and Ngaitamarangi (new hapu). I do not know whether Ngatihine are descendants of Te Bongopatahi. Other hapus worked at Te Hiha besides those I have mentioned—Ngatihine and Ngaitamarangi. When outsiders came to live with my elders land was given them to cultivate. Ido not know who of Ngatihine were given cultivations by Ngatipuri. Whare-o-tauira is north of Hokio Stream. I think the introduction of Christianity was the cause of Ngatipariri working there. Many Ngatipariri cultivated south of Hokio Stream. Ihaka te Bangihouhia and Hanita Kowhai did. I cannot name the others. The ancestors and elders of Tamati Maunu and Hanita Kowhai lived at Kouturoa before them. I did not hear that Hanita Kowhai was taken prisoner by Ngatituwharetoa. I heard that Tamati Maunu was captured by Te Whatanui at Karekare and brought here, but I do not know much about it. I haye heard it said that he lived at Kouturoa under Te Whatanui, but I do not know enough about it to say positively. I have heard that the Muaupoko did not live south of Hokio Stream on account of the boundary laid down by Taueki and Te Whatanui, and that Tamati Maunu lived at Kouturoa under the mana of Te Whatanui. I never heard that any of the chiefs of Ngatipariri or Ngatirongopatahi objected to the boundary fixed by Taueki and Whatanui. I have not heard it said that Taueki had rights in Horowhenua. The descendants of Pariri and Bongopatahi whose names appear on our list are the people entitled to this land by ancestry and occupation. I have seen Bihipeti Nireaha living at Horowhenua; she is a Muaupoko tuturu. I never heard that Hinerangi was taken prisoner. I knew Kawana Hunia. I have seen him at Horowhenua on visits. I have not seen him cultivating here. Wirihana Hunia lived here with some of the Muaupoko as a child. I did not see him cultivating the land, or hear that Ngatipariri set apart land for him because Hanita brought him here as a chief over Muaupoko. Ido not know whether Hoani Puihi is in our list of Ngatipariri. Iritana and Te Paki are. They lived here in my time. I heard that they had previously lived with Ngatiawa. Their parents had been taken prisoners by Ngatiawa. Ido not know what would have happened to Muaupoko if Whatanui had not agreed with Taueki upon a boundary between them. I heard that Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace. I did not hear that it was in consequence of their having made peace that Muaupoko were able to return to Horowhenua. I know that Te Bongopatahi did not fix the boundary at Ngatokorua. Himiona te Hopu fixed it. I have heard that Peeti te Aweawe and Ngatuere fixed the boundary at Ngatokorua. All Muaupoko were present. I remember the Court of 1886, which sat at Palmerston. The Ngatipariri did not set up a separate claim in that Court to Horowhenua. We did not properly appreciate our rights at that time. Wirihana Hunia was our kaiwhakahaere at that Court. I first heard that Bongopatahi was my putake to this land about the time I was married. I heard after the Court of 1886 that No. 11 was the property of Warena and Kemp only. I did not apply for a rehearing. I heard the descendants of Pariri say in. 1886 that the land was theirs. I attended the Court which sat at Palmerston in 1890. The descendants of Bongopatahi did not set up a separate case. We joined with Wirihana against Kemp, and supported the rights of Ngatipariri. I did not hear that Kemp and Wirihana came to an arrangement in connection with Horowhenua at that Court. I did not hear that the block was divided between them. The Court adjourned till the 21st instant.

G.—2a

61

Levin, Feiday, 21st May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case —continued. Paeanihia Biwai's cross-examination by Bawiri Bota continued. Witness : Ido not know how far south Pariri's land extended. I do not know how Bongopatahi acquired her right to this land except that she occupied it permanently. Bongopatahi and Pariri were children of Ngataitoko. I never heard from my elders that Ngataitoko lived at Porirua, or that he was called Ngataitoko ki Wairaka (" Wairaka," name of place at Porirua). Hamuera read Bihipeti's evidence to me. He read it from his report of her evidence. The people who gave me information about this land are all dead. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I never saw Anikanara Tihore. I have seen Meretene Whakaewa. I have not seen her living on this land. I have heard of her father, Ngarangiwhakaotia ; he had no right to this land; his rights were at Otaki, where he lived, and his ancestors before him. I never saw Ngarangiwhakaotia, but I heard that he lived at Otaki. I cannot give his whakapapa. When I saw Meretene Whakaewa she was living at Manawatu. Her mother belonged there. She told me so herself. Ido not know how she derived her rights to Manawatu lands. I do not know where Anikanara Tihore is buried. I was not here when she died. I lived here till I w T as grown up. I went to Wairarapa then, and returned here some time ago to live. I know Hoani Meihana. I never heard that he lived here with Bangihouhia. I knew Te Peeti te Aweawe. I never saw him living at Horowhenua. I heard the people say that he assisted Muaupoko against Ngatiraukawa —that is to say, he acted as mediator between them. Ido not know whether chiefs cultivated, some did and some did not. If the grandchildren of an owner of land who has left it return to the land of their grandfather, and are received by their relatives, their rights revive. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I went to Wairarapa to be married. My hapu took me there. I never saw the elder Whatanui. I returned here from Wairarapa about the time the Court sat in Palmerston in 1890. My elders told me about the boundary between Pariri and Te Bongopatahi. They did not tell me about Puakiteao coming to Horowhenua. I did not hear anything about it. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I was born at Horowhenua. I lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka and Toi. I was a young girl when I went to Wairarapa. I often came back to Horowhenua after my marriage. I stayed with Matene Pakauwera for a week or two at a time. I always saw Makere on my visits here. One of my children died here. I returned to my people here in 1890, because my husband left me. I have no house of my own here. I live with Pirihira, who is a tamaiti of mine. It is only now that I have been informed of the information I have given to the Court. Be-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : Some of the information I have given to the Court I learned before I went to Wairarapa. I heard about the boundary between Pariri and Bongopatahi and the kaingas of my parents previous to my going. The evidence I have given on cross-examination is what I have learned recently. Paki te Hunga sworn. Witness : lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I have a right to it by ancestry, continuous occupation, and ringakaha. I derive my ancestral right from— Pariri I Heneitohua I Te Rangihikaka i Kiore I Takiari I Taiata I [ I Iritana Paki te Hunga I have other lines from Hamua, Hukui and Ngataitoko. All these ancestors had rights to this land. Hamua I Wahatuara I Hinerautekawa I Korakotaiwaho I Kuramonehu I Tairea I Mahu Te Raikapua I Te Angiimua Te Rangihikaka

G—2a

62

My lines from Ngaitotoko and Te Hukui both come through Te Bangihikaka. The right to the land and the occupation commenced with Pariri. I have heard from my elders that Pariri first lived at Waipata and Pukeiti. Then she lived at Matanginui, near Kouturoa, and at Otaewa. These places have also been occupied by her descendants. Takapukaiparao was another kainga occupied by Pariri and her descendants. These are all the kaingas 1 know of; they became tapu, and I left them, because my children died when I occupied them. I know the cultivations of Pariri and her descendants. Te Umutawa-a-pariri: A place where Pariri collected and cooked tawa-berries. Weraroa and Otahinga: Hinau-berries collected there ; rats, wekas, and other game caught. Te Wharekauhou: A miro-tree; pigeons were snared there by descendants of Pariri ; my mother caught birds there. Otuhata: A miro-tree on No. 11; it belonged to my ancestors. These miros belonged to Te Pewa-a-rangi and Takiari in their day. Te Kurukuru: Miro-tree; it belonged to the same people. There was a bird-snaring stream near Te Tau-o-Morehurehunui, near the source of Te Awa-o-te-tau, used by the same people and the descendants of Te Eongopatahi. Waihau: An artificial well for steeping hinau ;it belonged to all Ngatipariri. Te Urunga-o-huatau : Fern-root ground, where the gravel-pit now is. The descendants of Pariri and Te Eongo got fern-root there. They were united then. It is only since this Court sat that they have separated. Otuauroa; Fern-root digging-place, used by descendants of Pariri. My mother and I got fern-root there. Paenoa :A pa tuna ;it belongs to the descendants of Pariri. Tokiwhati: An eel-pa ;it is mine by right from Pariri. Otawhaowhao : An eel-race ; it belonged to Piriri, and afterwards to Takiari. Okouia : An eel-pa; it belonged to the descendants of Pariri, and Pirihira Arahura, and Himiona. Ukiuki: A lagoon where eels were caught; belonged to descendants of Pariri. Tiu-a-te-kahunui, a lagoon; and Tiu-a-te-kaahuiti, also a lagoon : They both belonged to descendants of Pariri. Pirihira Arahura and Himiona used them. Taheremaro : A lagoon ; belonged to the same people. Te Waiatu : A lagoon. Tv was a descendant of both Pariri and Te Eongo ; he got his right to this lagoon from Pariri. Okotore : A lagoon ; belonged to the same people. Kaikanohi: A lagoon, belonging to the same people. All the lagoons and. eel-pas I have mentioned are in No. 11, south of Hokio Stream, except Ukiuki and Tiu-a-te-kahu, which are in No. 9. Heretoa, belonging to descendants of Pariri and Tairea. Eakauhamama: A lagoon; it belonged to Ngatipuri. Whakamaungaariki: A hill. There is an eel-pa in the swamp at the foot of it. It belonged to descendants of Tairea. Kaiarero: A bush where kiekei was obtained. My mother and Ngataahi's mother were the only persons who had a right to gather tawhara there. Matiherau: All descendants of Pariri got tawhara there; no others. Pukaahu: An eel-pa; it belonged to both Pariri and Eongopatahi; they quarrelled over it; it is in Hokio Stream. Eventually Te Eongo got possession of it, and Pariri insisted that the land should be divided. It remained in possession of the descendants of Te Eongo; hence the name Pukaahu-a-tu. I can describe the boundary between Pariri and Te Eongo. It was laid down by themselves. It commenced at Hokiopuni, at the mouth of Hokio; thence to Tirotirowhetu, Ohenga, Waiwherowhero, Patoitoi, Te Kawakawa, Te Koropu, Tutohu, Te Umutawa-a-pariri, Motu-o-kaka, Tieke-taunoa, Te Urunga-o-huatau, Te Awa-a-tatau, Kaiwha, Tau-o-te-kiekie, Te Arapaepae, Harurunui, Tau-o-te-kahikatoa, on summit of Tararua. Pararaurekau: A cultivation cleared by my parents and myself; it is in the township block. Te Makomako : A cultivation on No. 11. Taumati Maunu and his sons-in-law cultivated part of it. I cleared the other part of it—l and my uncles. Titirangi: A cultivation used by Ngatipariri. Koti: A cultivation in No. 11, used by Tamati Maunu, a descendant of Pariri. Tatearero: A cultivation used by Ngatipariri in No. 11. Kouturoa : A kainga and cultivation of Ngatipariri. I allowed Ngatuere and Marakaia Tawaroa to live there in 1873. Hapaitakeke: A cultivation of Ngatipariri; no others had any right to it. Whatiwhatiwahine : A cultivation of Ngatipariri. Paenoa: A cultivation; it belongs to Ngatipariri ; they all worked there. Takapukaiparoro: A kainga and cultivation of mine. Te Waikoukou: A cultivation used by Hanita and myself. Te Eua-o-te-Hukui is there. Te Hukui was buried there; his body was exhumed and hidden. The children of Hana Eata are living at Te Waikoukou now. My children are buried at Otaewa with others. Te Eangirurupuni is buried there ; he is the only Ngaiteao buried there. The others are Ngatipariri. Te Oinga-o-taanekura: A cultivation belonging to descendants of Pariri. Te Eere-a-te-whioi: A cultivation used by my sister Iritana. Te Piri-a-tawa: A cultivation. Himiona Kowhai is living there now, and harvesting the crops. Te Eae-o-te-karaka: These were cultivations and a permanent kainga. There was apa there with carved posts. It is on the Eongopatahi side of the boundary. The pa was occupied by Ngatipariri and the descendants of Te Eongopatahi. One of the carved posts was called Bangihikaka, another was called Tairatu, another Takare, another was named Poroheti; Eakura was another. These were at Ngatipariri end. At Eongopatahi end one of the posts was called Toea. The others were not carved. The pa was built after the introduction of Christianity, and after I was grown up. Ngatipariri had no right there. My elders and I cultivated at Pitaua-a-Tutua, near Te Kawiu. The descendants of Te Eongo gave us permission to grow crops there. Ngarauru attacked the people on this block. I do not know who their chief was. The Whanganuis, Ngatiapa, and Eangitane, and some of the Ngatipariri were with them. Te Ngarue was killed by this taua at Mangaroa; others were captured. Tautau was one. Karira te Uira is a descendant of Tautau. After this Ngatipariri attacked the remnants of Ngarue's people — Ngatirue and Ngatikura. At that time my aunt Wharariki was married to Taueki's brother Motai. Takiari and Te Ange-o-te-rangi were two of the principal chiefs of this party. Wharariki and Motai had a child before this fight. Ngaitengarue and Ngatikura were relatives of Taueki; they were killed and formed part of a feast in honour of the birth of the child. This is the reason that none of the Ngaitengarue live at Mangaroa. Those that are living there are connected with other hapus. I heard that Te Ngarue came here from some other district. The land seaward of Moutere belonged to Ngatikura and Ngatikokopu and Ngaitapuiti, Ngatipouwhenua, and Ngatimaikuku. Their chief was Ngamaihi. When Te Piro went to take eels at

63

G.—2a,

Te Waha-a-te-ngarara Fa, at Manawatu, Ngamaihi found him there, and destroyed the eel-pot and basket. Te Piro, in revenge, stole Ngamaihi's idol, and brought it to Te Bangihikaka. He told Te Bangihikaka what had happened, and the latter said, " You should have killed the custodian before taking the fish." Te Bangihikaka then attacked and defeated Ngamaihi's hapus. The survivors are among the Bangitane and Ngatiapa; Te Bangimairehau, Makere, Baniera and others are some of them. Ngaiteao and Ngatipariri formed Bangihikaka's war-party. Hamua was the former name of the hapu now known as Ngatipariri; the latter name was adopted during Pariri's time. The descendants of Rongopatahi were known as Ngaiteao. There were no fights on this land after those I have described until Te Bauparaha came. I have just thought of another fight. Te Uira was killed at Otaewa by his brothers-in-law. I forget their names. Temou's life was saved through his mother disguising his sex; she was a Ngatipariri, named Wairotoariki. After these fights Te Bangihikaka had the mana over the whole of this land. A post was put in at Te Urungahau to prevent other hapus coming on the land; it was called Te Bangihikaka. Only the descendants of Pariri and Bongopatahi remained on the land. Hoani Puihi, Tamati Maunu, Matene Pakauwere, Moihi te Whiumaiwaho, and others disregarded the rahui, and were lost in the bush, and did not find their way out for a week. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : Pariri had an ancestral right to this land through Ngataitoko— Tupatunui I Amarumoari I Rereao I Tamakitehau I Taiharuru Whakarongatai I Ngataitoko = Hikaotaote I Pariri I have not heard whether there was any one in possession of this land when Tupatunui arrived here. Tupatunui remained at Taikoria. He sent his son Amarumoari here to Moutere. Ido not know whether there was any one living southward of Horowhenua at that time. Tupatunui was killed at Muaupoko by Ngatituhakeke and Ngaitara. Ngatimamoe also lived south of Horowhenua. lam sure that Tupatunui was killed at Muaupoko; his head was taken to Porirua. Ido not know his tribal or hapu name. I have not heard whether his death was avenged. I have not heard that Amarumoari fixed any boundaries when he lived at Moutere. The land occupied by the descendants of Tupatunui extended as far south as the Ohau Stream. This was the boundary of Tupatunui's own personal property. Te Bangiheke occupied south of Ohau Stream, adjoining Tupatunui. This land extended to the Waikanae Biver. South of the Waikanae came the Ngaituura and Ngatirongomai. Tiripa, who married Hoani Meihana, is the only living representative of those hapus. All the lands that belonged to Pariri and Te Bongo originally belonged to Hamua. Ngatikokopu, Ngatikura, Ngatimaikuku, Ngaitapuiti, Ngatipowhenua, and Ngaitengarue were the hapus driven off this land by Ngatipariri. They formerly lived on this land near the coast. I was not told where they came from or when they came—whether before or after Amarumoari. They were connected with Muaupoko, but I cannot trace their descent. I cannot trace Taueki's connection with Te Ngarue's hapus. Some of the Muaupoko can if they choose. Ido not know whether the eel-pa Te Piro went to belonged to Ngamaihi or Te Piro; I suppose it belonged to Ngamaihi. lam sure the incident I have mentioned did not happen at Horowhenua. I have heard of a post called Te Pou-o-temou ; it was put up in connection with an eel-pa by Ngatitairatu, a hapu of Ngatipariri. Ido not know that Tireo ever stepped on this land. Te Pou-o-temou was not put in after Te Uamairangi was defeated. Tairatu was a son of Buatapu; he was a nephew of Tireo. I heard of a dispute between Potangotango and Horapoto at Horowhenua. Potangotango was thrown into the water. Tairatu stopped the quarrel, and saved Potangotango. The eel-pa now belongs to descendants of Potangotango—l mean Baumatangi. Horapoto and Tairatu were nephews of Potangotango. Tairatu gave the Baumatangi eel-pa to Potangotango because Horapoto had thrown him in the stream. It belonged to Tairatu, and Te Horapoto and Potangotango attempted to take it. Ido not know how Tairatu and Te Horapoto derived their right to the pa. I do not know that they got it from their father, Buatapu. I have heard that Tairatu and Horapoto were partly Ngatipariri, but I cannot trace them. The Court adjourned till the 25th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 25th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case —continued. Paki te Hunga cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : It was Ngatipariri who conquered the Ngatikokopu and the other hapus living on this land. These hapus were first defeated by Whanganuis, Ngaraurus, and Ngatiapa for cursing Te

G.— 2a

64

Puakanga. I did not hear that Muaupoko conquered them, or that Pariri did not take part in the conquest. I did not hear that Tahunuiarangi, of Ngatiapa, was the chief of the war-party that defeated them. Some of the descendants of Tupatunui are Ngatiapa; others are Muaupoko. I cannot trace his Ngatiapa descendants. I have not heard that Tupatunui wan set up as the ancestor for Bangitikei lands. I have not heard that Wirihana Hunia claimed a right to the Batahi Block from Tupatunui through Kaewa. I have not heard of any other case where women have laid down boundaries between their hapus. Te Bongopatahi and Pariri did it. They were not interfered with by outside hapus. I have heard that Te Biunga lived at Te Bauawa. I suppose, therefore, that she had rights there. Tanguru lived there also. I heard that Te Biunga got her rights from her husband, Taniwha. I attended the Court at Foxton in 1872 and 1873, when Kukutauaki and Horowhenua were put through the Court. Mr. Cash acted as our legal adviser. Kemp gave evidence. I do not remember whether he preferred an ancestral claim to Horowhenua. I think he claimed by conquest. I do not remember whether he claimed from Kupu through Puakiteao and Tireo. Ngatipariri and Ngatirongopatahi did not set up separate case against the Ngatiraukawa, but the Ngatipariri were represented by Kawana Hunia. I have heard that Kahukore saved Muaupoko when Waipata was attacked by beating paddles against the side of a canoe and alarming the attacking force; but she was not alone; there were many other women with her. I was not at Foxton when the list of 143 names was handed into Court. 1 had returned to Bangitikei. I returned to Foxton a week after names were submitted. The Ngatipariri did not object to the list in Court. We were inexperienced then, but we knew that we had suffered an injustice. Kawana Hunia was angry with Kemp about the list of names, but he did not object to the list in Court. Kawana Hunia and I retained Sir Walter Buller a little later to take some action on our behalf. We paid him £100, but he did nothing that I know of. I knew when the Court sat in 1886 at Palmerston that it was subdividing Horowhenua. Ngatipariri were not in a position then to claim No. 11, because it was vested in others. Wirihana and Warena did not tell me that the original certificate had been cancelled. Warena said that No. 11 was vested in Kemp and himself absolutely. Kemp contended that it belonged to the people. We have not derived any benefit from No. 11 since 1886. Warena derived his right to No. 11 from Pariri. If he had claimed from any other ancestor he would not have been put in. Kemp knew that Warena had rights to the land, or he would not have admitted him into No. 11. I have occupied Horowhenua permanently, as did my ancestors and elders before me. My elders were not taken prisoners ; they migrated to the Middle Island before I was born. Kotuku went, but many of his relatives of Ngatitairatu remained here and kept his fires alight. Tawhati-o-te-rangi, Te Anga-o-te-rangi, Te Pewa-a-rangi, Takiari, Te Bangitekaia, Tamati Maunu, Noate Waiehu, Otini-o-te-rangi, and other Ngatipariri chiefs remained at Horowhenua when Kotuku left for the Middle Island. Te Bangihouhia was another who remained. They lived here as an independent people, and were never molested. They did not take part in the peace-making between Taueki and Whatanui. Ngatipariri wanted to kill Te Whatanui, and he fled to Otaki. They did not live under the mana of Taueki. lam speaking for myself and all the other Ngatipariri. I was born in the Middle Island. When I was young I lived at Te Uruhe. My mother and Henare Waimarama brought me to Horowhenua. It is not true that Hanita and Makere brought me here. Kawana Hunia did not live permanently at Horowhenua. He lived at Bangitikei, but came here on visits. He had a house at Otaewa. It was put up for the purpose of storing materials required in connection with the erection of the fence Kawana Hunia wished to put up. Muaupoko could not object to the building. I cannot say that Wirihana Hunia has any cultivations at Horowhenua. He may have assisted in making clearings. Since the introduction of Christianity the Ngatipariri have cultivated north of the Horowhenua Stream. Te Watutua was given to my mother and me to cultivate. Matenga Pakauwera gave us permission to cultivate there. I was living at Otaewa when we set fire to the Ngatiraukawa houses. Tamati Maunu was not the only Ngatipariri living at Kouturoa at the time of the trouble with Ngatiraukawa. He had rights of his own there. I never heard that he was captured at Karekare and brought here. I admit the rights of the descendants of Taueki at Paringatai and Whatawhataka, but to no other part of Horowhenua. Taueki had a landing-place at Motukowhai. His descendants have cultivations at Te Pora-a-turia, near that landing-place. Te Puapua was the Ngatiwhano and Ngatikokopu landing-place. They also cultivated at Te Pora-a-turia. I have not heard that Te Whatanui's people cultivated at Te Watutua when they came to live with Taueki. I have not heard that the Ngatiraukawa found a tiki there. They cleared the land with Ngatipariri and Ngaiteao, and the tiki was found by one of Te Whatanui's people at the foot of a mahoe-tree. The Ngatipariri have no eel-pas in Hokio Stream. Their boundary is south of the stream. Hanita Kowhai is a Ngatipariri; he has an eel-pa in the stream. He bought it from Te Whatanui Tutaki. I have not heard that the descendants of Te Bongopatahi objected. It is not a fact that I stored my effects in the building at Otaewa to prevent their being seized by my creditors. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Ngaiteao have rights to Horowhenua as descendants of Te Bongopatahi. The name Ngaiteao is taken from Puakiteao. I have seen Anikana Tikori living at Horowhenua. She was brought here from Porirua by Te Kerehi. I did not hear that Te Peeti brought her here, but he may have. I saw her cultivating and living at Te Waitahi. I heard first that the tiki found at Te Watutua belonged to Meretene. Afterwards I heard that it was the property of Tama tv Atua. Meretene had good rights to the land. Peeti te Aweawe assisted us in 1873 against the Ngatiraukawa. His name was put in the certificate, and he got his share—all he is entitled to—for the services he rendered us. I leave it to the Court to say whether he had rights by ancestry and occupation.

65

G.—2a

Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I know that Manihera te Bau lived at Horowhenua. He lived here by right of his wife, who was a Muaupoko. His wife was his right here. Her parents were taken prisoners, but she escaped and fled to Horowhenua. I leave it to the Court to say whether Manihera te Bau has any right to the land. Mere Mionga had good rights to this land. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: I heard that Tairatu married Hokiara. Ido not know who her parents were, or what hapu she belonged to. I have not heard that he had any other wife. Hokiara belonged here. I may be wrong ; her name may have been Hokomata. Pariri had three children that I know of —Hineitohua, Tui, and Kopani. She may have had others. Kopani's children were Maewa, Taniwha, and others. Ido not know the names of the others. Maewa married Tairatu, I think. Kotuku was their child. I was mistaken in saying that Tairatu married Hokiara. I have heard of an ancestor called Tawhaowhao. Ido not know who Tairatu's father was. Ido not know who Tairatu's mother was. Kotuku had relatives at Taranaki. Keteariki was one; he married Tuhona, of Muaupoko. I cannot trace the descent from Keteariki. The descendants of Puakiteao intermarried with the descendants of Pariri and Te Bongo ; that is how his descendants got their rights here. Takiari, a descendant of Pariri, married Hineikimihia, granddaughter of Pikimaunga, who was son of Te Biunga, who was daughter of Puakiteao. Puakiteao I Te Riunga = Taniwha Parianiwaniwa = Kapuwai The Taniwha who married Te Biunga is not the Taniwha who is given as the son of Kopani. Ido not know where Takiari married Hineikimihia, or where Taniwha and Te Riunga met. I heard that Taniwha belonged here. I did not hear that Te Biunga came here. I heard that she lived at Tamaki with Tireo and her other relatives. Tireo was not killed at Oroua; he was killed at the mouth of Tokomaru. The Ngatiapa killed him. I do not know whether he was killed before or after Te Bangihikaka expelled Ngatikokopu from Horowhenua. My sister Iritana is a descendant of Tairatu, but I have never been told Tairatu's genealogy. I could walk when I first came to Horowhenua. We stayed with my mother's sister, Whararaki, at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Te Whatanui the elder was living then. Te Eae-o-te-karaka is on the north side of Hokio, near the north-western corner of the lake. All Ngatipariri were there. There was no one living south of Hokio at that time. Te Whatanui had leased it to Mr. McDonald. All the land south of Hokio was in possession of Whatanui's tenant. Kawana Hunia and I first attempted to interfere with Whatanui's tenant after Court of 1873. I did not assist to build Kupe. My elders told me about the quarrel between Te Bongo and Pariri over Pukaahu eel-pa. It is not a fact that Pukaahu belonged to Puakiteao. Te Bongopatahi owned the whole of the Hokio Stream. Ido not know how Tairatu and Horapoto became possessed of the Baumatangi eel-pa, but they were the rangatiras of it. I never heard that Tairatu got Baumatangi on his marriage with Maewa. I could point out to the Court Te Bua-a-hukui. Biwai Ngarangikapikia carved the posts I have mentioned. I saw Te Karira at Waitotara. I never saw him here. He told me his ancestor was captured at Mangaroa. He was a descendant of Te Ngarue, Puakiteao, and Te Bongo. I cannot give his whakapapa. He did not tell me which ancestor was captured. I do not know who Te Piro's father and mother were. Tairatu gave Potangotango the Baumatanga eel-pa as compensation for his having been thrown into it. I do not know that he had any other land here. When his tamaiti Tapuae married Kuraaitu he became their workman. I took an active part against Ngatiraukawa after 1873. I did not pull Hetariki's hair. I did not see Hunia pull it. Kemp is wrong if he says he did. I set fire to Watene's houses. Kawana Hunia remained some distance away and made a speech. Taueki may have been friendly with Whatanui, because they had made peace. I saw Taueki's people cutting raupo for Whatanui's house, and preparing the site. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I can write my name. I signed my name to a petition to Parliament in 1891 about the Horowhenua Block. I did not agree to Kemp having 3,500 acres in Horowhenua No. 11. I did not sign any petition with a clause of that kind in it. [Petition read.] I never signed that petition. I signed a petition prepared on behalf of Warena. Donald Fraser asked me to sign it. I did not read it. It was read to me by Donald Fraser. He did not read any clause agreeing to give Kemp 3,500 acres. If I had known there was such a clause in it I would not have signed it. I have always sided with Warena Hunia against Kemp and the Muaupoko Tribe hitherto. -Now I am by myself. I have been by myself since I gave the false evidence in Palmerston, which I confessed to the Commission. I am now telling the truth. I come from Uruhi to Horowhenua. Makere did not carry me here. I could run about and play. I grew up here. Then went to Bangitikei and Turakina. I went to school at Otaki. This was before I went to Bangitikei. [Vol. 14, page 267, Paki's evidence : " When you first came from Uruhi," &c] Ido not remember giving that evidence. I could not have said it. I did not return to Bangitikei after I left the Otaki school. I attended a school here after I left Otaki. I was not very long at Bangitikei before I married —about two years. I lived at Turakina for some time. I also lived at Wairarapa, but not for long. I went to Bangitikei from Wairarapa. Ail my children by my first wife were born at Bangitikei. When I married my second wife I lived at Foxton and Turakina for a time, and then came to Horowhenua with all my goods. I built a toetoe whare near- where Ben Stickles's house now is. That was not the first time Muaupoko had seen me living here. There was no one living near where I put up my toetoe house. I put in some crops, and had to

9—G. 2a.

a.—2a

66

leave the place on account of the illness of my wife and children. I went to Foxton. I have never returned to live at Horowhenua, but my sister is living here, and my farming implements are here. I did not leave them with Ben Stickles. He has taken possession of them. Hector McDonald has seen me living at Horowhenua. Iritana knows I have lived here. Hoani Puihi saw me living here. I had a building at Otaewa. It was my first house. I built it after I came here with my second wife. I got my information about this land here from my elders, Hanita Wharariki and others, after I was grown up. Iritana does not know as much as I do about Horowhenua; she was not instructed. I did not obtain my information about Horowhenua in 1890. I have said that Mere Mionga had good rights to this land. She was a daughter of Tawhati and Mango. She was not a Ngatiapa. I do not know whether Mango was a Ngatiapa. I do not know where she died. Mere Mionga and I are similar in this respect: that our children were born and remained at Turakina. Taiata was a young woman when she went to Arapaoa with her husband. Ido not know whether she was there at the time of Haowhenua. I was born after Kuititanga, at Arapaoa. I lived a considerable time at Te Uruhi. Ido not know whether Hineikimihia was a wahine tuturu of this land. Kiore married Pewa-a-rangi. She was mother of Takiari. Pewa-a-rangi was a half-caste—Ngatiapa and Ngatipariri. I have set up Pewa-a-rangi as my ancestor for Ngatiapa lands—the lands sold to Government. I was successful by ancestry, but had no occupation. I did not get into the Bangatira Block. I had no right there. Te Pewa-a-rangi died at Horowhenua. Ido not know what part, perhaps on the branch of a tree. Bangihikaka married Te Waha. Ido not know where Te Waha came from or what tribe she belonged to. It is not correct that Bangihikaka ran away to Wairarapa. He followed his daughter Te Niho, who had gone there because one of Makere's relatives wanted to marry her. He- was bewitched, and died there. He had not been there long when he was bewitched by Pohokura. I did not hear that Te Waha went with him. Whitiria married Kahoro, of Ngaitiere, of Muaupoko. Kahoro was a descendant of Bangiheke ; she and her husband lived at Waitawa. One of their children — Mauruhau — married Karoro, of Ngaiterangi. They lived at Waitawa also. Bangihouhia was brother of Mauruhau. He lived at Waitawa. He came backwards and forwards to Horowhenua. Bangihouhia killed Hotoke, and came to the pas at Horowhenua for safety. He lived permanently at Waitawa. He came here sometimes. He remained at Horowhenua some time, then went to Bangitikei, and died there. Kaewa lived with Bangihouhia at Waitawa. Ido not know whether Bangihouhia killed Hotoke before or after Kaewa married Te Hakeke. Ido not know where Te Hakeke married Kaewa. I heard that Kaewa was taken from Horowhenua by Ngatiapa te Bangitikei, where she married Te Hakeke. The Court adjourned till the 26th instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 26th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Hamuera Karaitiana's Case —continued. Paki te Hunga's cross-examination by J. M. Fraser continued. Witness : I do not know that the marriage of Kaewa to Hakeke was a matter of importance to Muaupoko. It was an important ceremony, both here and at Bangitikei. Kaewa was taken from here. I do not know whether she and Hakeke first lived together here. I have not heard that they were married at Waitawa. I heard that Kaewa was taken from Waipata to Bangitikei. I do not know that she lived constantly at Bangitikei after her marriage. She would naturally return here to see her relatives. Bangihouhia married Pura, of Ngatimoewaka, who lived at Otaki. Ido not know where Ihaka te Bangihouhia was born. I know the State farm near here ; it contains about 1,500 acres of good land. I cannot say whether the 1,500 acres sold by the Hunia family is more than they are entitled to in No. 11. I cannot say whether Kawana Hunia was entitled to 1,500 acres in No. 11; that is for the Court to decide. Amarumoari and Bangiheke both lived on this land. [Vol. xiv., page 272, Paki's evidence : " Were te Bongo and Pariri the first occupants of the land," &c] I will not deny that I gave that evidence. Waiwiri was the southern boundary of Pariri's land. It extended from the mouth of Waiwiri Stream to the ranges. I heard this from Hanita and Wharariki, the persons who had knowledge of this land. [Vol. xiv., page 272, Paki's evidence: " You say that the land of Pariri was east of that line," &c] I did not give that evidence in 1891. I must have been wrongly interpreted. I remember telling the Court in 1890 that the Pariri line was a cut line. I was told that it was cut while I was away with the Native contingent. Himiona Taiweherua told me. I said in the Court of 1891 that Karaitiana was the only person who told me. I had forgotten Himiona then. In 1890 I said that Hanita told me. I remember getting Karaitiana to go with me to Mr. McDonald's room in 1891. He did not tell me then that the whole story was a fabrication ; he said that the Pariri boundary had not been strictly adhered to. Karaitiana denied in Court that the Pariri boundary had been cut. He had been induced to say so. He did not say who had induced him to say it. I have not snared birds on any of the trees I have spoken of. I have heard that my elders did. They told me so. The descendants of Pariri on my side know of these trees. The Ngatihine know nothing of them. Te Piri-o-tawa is quite close to Mr. Hector McDonald's fence. The fence there has only been lately put up. We erected it, because we knew the land was ours. I repeat that Ngaitengarue were attacked and defeated by Ngatipariri. There are other Ngatipariri living who know this, but they will probably deny it now, because they have all gone over to Kemp. Ido not know northern or southern boundaries of land leased by Whatanui to Hector McDonald. Ido not know that all the land between Poroutawhao and Ohau was included in the lease.

67

G.—2a

Be-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: Karaitiana told me that the line was from Kaiwha to Arapaepae. I assumed that he meant the Pariri boundary. When I was living in Wairarapa, Turakina, and other places, my sister remained here. I lived at Turakina on my wife's land. To Assessor; I heard that Taikoria was one of Tupatunui's principal places of residence. I have heard that Te Amarumoari lived at Moutere. His children lived at Horowhenua. The children of Bereao and Tamakitekau lived at Horowhenua. I heard that Taingaruru lived here. His son Whakarongotai also lived at Horowhenua. I do not know of any signs of their occupation. I have not heard that Hikaotaota was enslaved. She came as a rangatira and married Ngataitoko. I do not know how Te Hukui got his right here, but Te Bangiheke lived at Muhunoa, and took part in the Beporoa fight. I do not know by what right he lived at Muhunoa. Hineitohua married Te Angiimua. Ido not know what right the latter had here. He may have lived here because he married Hineitohua. Kawainga did not live here; she went away with her husband to Waikanae, and ultimately to Wairarapa. That is why there was no land set apart for her here. I do not think the making of peace between Taueki and Te Whatanui did away with ancestral rights. If Te Bangihouhia had killed Te Whatanui the Muaupoko would not have been exterminated. The Bangitane and Ngatiapa would have assisted them to resist Ngatiraukawa. The Ngatipariri occupied their land south of Hokio after the peaipe-making. There are no signs of occupation by any other hapu. Ido not know whether they joined in the peace-making. I judge not, because they supported Te Bangihouhia, who was restrained by Taueki from carrying out his intentions against Te Whatanui until he was taken away to Bangitikei to prevent trouble. I was at Turakina in 1865. When Kawana Hunia built Kupe, he built it as a meeting-place for the tribes who came here to ask Ngatiraukawa to restore to Muaupoko their lands. The resident Ngatipariri did not acknowledge that Ngatiraukawa had the mana over their land south of Hokio, but Ngatiraukawa claimed to have mana over it. Ido not know what the result of Te Kupe meeting was. Ido not think it was decided at that meeting that Whatanui's boundary commenced at Te Tau-o-te-ruru. It was Kawana Hunia and not Kemp who secured Horowhenua for the Muaupoko. To Court: Mere Mionga had rights to this land from her father, Tawhati-a-Tumata. It was her Ngaitengarue relatives who were conquered. The Ngatikura were descendants of Ngarue. Hamuera Karaitiana's case closed. ■ The Court called Nireaha Tamaki to give information on the whakapapa referred to by Bihipeti Tamaki. Nieeaha Tamaki sworn. Witness :I am not an expert in whakapapa, but I know the Hamua genealogy. [Gives it.] I heard that Whareao and others lived at Ihuraua, near Bangiwhakaoma (Alfredton). Their descendants lived there also. Many Muaupoko resided there. They were known both as Muaupoko and Hamua. When Mangatainoka was before the Court at Palmerston in 1875 a part of it was awarded to Heni Wairangi, Maaka Petera-te-ha, and others of Muaupoko. Ido not know what their ancestral right was. Warakihi lived at Tutaekara and died there. He went there from Horowhenua. I copied the wJiakapapa put in by Bihipeti from Tamati Maunu's book of whakapapas. I did not learn it. I do not know anything about the takes to Horowhenua. I heard that the name " Muaupoko " originated from Tupatunui. Ido not know where Tupatunui lived. I heard of the origin of the name " Muaupoko " when I was living here. To Rawiri Rota : I heard the whakapapa I have given from Hetariki and others. It is well known by residents on the other side of the range. I copied Tamati Maunu's genealogy from his written whakapapa. Hinerautekawa had other children besides Bakaimaro. lam a descendant of one of them. Tiwhana was one of her children. The Hamua genealogy as given by Te Paki at Court of 1890 is wrong. I heard that Mahu married Tupoho and begat Te Baikapua. I heard that Muaupoko lived at Ihuraua before they came here. Ido not know when they came here. I have not heard why the Muaupoko came to Horowhenua from Ihuraua. I was not told where Tupatunui came from to this district. I do not know what reason there was for naming Muaupoko after the head of Tupatunui. I heard it from the people here, not from my own elders. Cross-examined by Henaei te Apataei. Witness : I do not know that Te Ihuraua was the first kainga of Muaupoko and Hamua. I have not heard where they went from to Ihuraua, but I heard that they came to Horowhenua from Ihuraua. I have not heard what tribe was in occupation of Horowhenua when Muaupoko and Hamua came here. I heard that Aitupaoa killed Tawhakahiku and Mangere. I have not heard any whakatauaki in connection with the killing of these persons. During my time Hunia was the chief who called upon my section of Hamua when he required assistance. He invited them to come to the Kupe meeting and to attend the Court at Foxton in 1873. I have not heard that Te Aweawe ever sent to Hamua for assistance. I have heard of Te Apitipakura fight, but Ido not know much about it. I have heard of Turakiawatea fight. I heard that the Bangitane invited Hamua to take part in that fight. I have heard of a lagoon near Waikanae called Muaupoko. I first heard that Muaupoko got their tribal name from that lagoon, but this was contradicted afterwards. Mr. Knocks : No questions. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I married Bihipeti here. We lived here about a year after our marriage. It was then that I heard my father-in-law give the genealogies I have repeated to the Court to-day. Tamati Maunu told me that Te Weraroa belonged to Pariri, and that the land to the north of it belonged to Te Bongopatahi. That is all he told me about it. He did not tell me how they became possessed of the land.

G.—2a

68

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : My wife has a case before this Court. Hamuera is her conductor. I have heard that Taheke married Whareao. I never heard that Taniwha married Whareao. Taheke and Whareao lived at Ihuraua. A daughter of theirs was buried at Ihuraua. I have forgotten her name. Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were children of Whareao and Taheke. They were killed here. Ido not know why they came here from Ihuraua. I have not heard. Their parents came here with them. I cannot give Taheke's genealogy. I do not'know whether Puanga came here with Whareao. lam not a descendant of Taheke and Whareao. I say positively that Whareao married Taheke. All the elders know this. I heard that Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai lived at Ihuraua. Ido not know whether they were born there. There is a post there called after Toheriri. I can give the genealogy from Bangitane to Hamua: — Rangitane Kopuparapara Kuaopango Uengarehupango Hamua Awariki Hauiti The descendants of Hamua are all Bangitane. The descendants of Awariki and Hauiti are also called Hamua. I have heard of an ancestress called Puakiteao. I cannot give her whakapapa. I have heard of her at Manawatu and Tamaki. I heard that she lived on the other side of Manawatu Biver, near where Foxton now is. I heard also that she lived at Tamaki. I heard that Tireo occupied Manawatu and Tamaki. I did not hear from the elders of Muaupoko when I was residing here that Puakiteao owned this land. I knew Hanita Kowhai. I did not speak to him about the rights to Horowhenua. Hetariki gave me some whakapapa. He did not mention Puakiteao as the owner of Horowhenua. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Wirihana Hunia was in Mr. McDonald's list of names for Ngapaeruru. We all claimed from Bangitane in that case. Wirihana claimed through Hauiti. I cannot trace the descent. Wirihana and I fought against Ngatiparakiori. We endeavoured to establish the permanent occupation of our ancestors. Hoani Meihana relied on Puakiteao in Ngapaeruru, and we supported him because our cases were the same. We were all fighting against Ngatikahungunu. I have not heard of any of the Muaupoko descendants of Puakiteao setting up a claim through that ancestor to any of the Manawatu lands. I think Te Paki has. Hoani Meihana put Kemp's name in our list of Ngapaeruru. Ido not know whether Kemp gave him any authority to do so. Bangiwhakaewa was the ancestor set up for Mangatoro, Tamaki, and other bush blocks. The fight in those cases was between Bangitane and the half-caste Ngatikahungunu. The descendants of Bangiwhakaewa are always spoken of in Court as Bangitane. Outside the Court they are called Hamua sometimes. Hori Herehere is known in Wairarapa as a Hamua. In Tamaki he is a Ngatirangi whakaewa. I have not heard of Te Aopineki or of Te Bangiwhakatikaia, or of Te Waiorua. I have heard of Korokawehi. He was killed by Te Aroaro at Manawatu, at a place called Otupaka. I did not hear that Warakihi and Maheua were there. Ido not know where they were. I did not hear that they fled from Otupaka to Horowhenua when Korokawehi was killed. Pokai married Matuku, so I heard. Ido not know where Pokai came from. I heard first that Muaupoko got their name from the lagoon of that name. I heard this from Te Matenga Tinotahi when I was first married. I heard the Tupatunui version from Hetariki some time after. Te Matenga was an owner of the land. Hetariki was not. Ido not know which story is the correct one. When I said that Puakiteao lived at Tamaki I meant that her post was there. I never heard the people at Tamaki claim through her. They always claim from Te Bangiwhakaewa. To A ssessor: Te Matenga Tinotahi told me that he had lived at Waikanae, and that he had rights there. He did not say that he had lived at Pukerua. He said that the name Muaupoko applied to Te Bangirurupuni and himself. When I was living here I heard that all the resident Muaupoko had rights to Horowhenua, no matter which hapu they belonged to. I cannot say of my own knowledge who of Muaupoko have rights and who have not. That information can be obtained from themselves only. The Court adjourned till the 27th instant.

Levin, Thubsday, 27th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. McDonald's Case. Mr. McDonald : My clients, with whom are associated certain other persons, claim by ancestry and occupation, bravery, &c. We say that the ancestral right to this land comes through one or more of three sisters —Kawainga, Te Bongopatahi, and Pariri. We say, further, that if there is any person whose name is in the list of 18 and who cannot be traced from one or more of these sisters, it

69

G.—2a

will be found that such person was admitted for some special reason other than ancestral. There are numerous whakapapas before the Court, given at various Courts, showing lines of descent from the most ancient times. These will show generally that the families from which and through which my clients claim ancestrally have occupied these districts from the earliest times. I shall in due course put in a whakapapa, which I propose to prove, showing the descent of my clients from Pariri. My client Himiona Kowhai has also four lines from Puakiteao, which I shall prove for what it may be worth- I will call Wirihana Hunia. Wirihana Hunia on former oath. Witness : lam the son of the late Kawana Hunia te Hakeke. My tribes are Ngatiapa, Muaupoko, Ngatikahungunu, and Ngatituwharetoa. As a Muaupoko I claim from Tupatunui through Pariri. Pariri had two sisters —viz., Te Kawainga, who was the eldest, and Te Bongopatahi. Pariri was the youngest of the three. Tupatunui is the first ancestor through whom I claim this land. I would like to add to the whakapapa I gave in on stating my prima facie case. I will trace from Tiere to myself. Tiere I Kahoro I Mauruhau The Ngaitiere took their name from Tiere. Kopanitaha married Mangere ; but I will leave Hoani Puihi to trace from that line, in case I should make a mistake. Tupatunui first lived at Taikoria, near where Foxton now is. Taikoria is a hill about the same height as Moutere. There is an extensive view from the summit. It is in open country, but there is bush near it. It is said that Tupatunui had a house on Taikoria called Tauakira. He had a ngarara called Whangaimokopuna in a cave there. The cave is still to be seen. His hapu was Ngatikauwae. He was the ancestor of some of the hapus of Ngatiapa. He was also the ancestor of descendants of Pariri, Bongopatahi, and Kawainga. Tupatunui was killed at Te Anao Hau, south of Paekakariki, I heard, by Ngatiira, who occupied Whanganui-a-tara at that time. I have not heard what he was doing there. His death was avenged by Ngatiapa and Muaupoko, who defeated Ngatiira, and they fled to the South Island. Ido not know what was done with Tupatunui's body, but his head was found on a stone at Pukerua. The name Muaupoko originated from the finding of Tupatunui's head. I have only recently heard of a lagoon called Muaupoko. I suppose the name had the same origin, but I do not know. Amarumoari, the son of Tupatunui, lived at Moutere, on No. 11. The name of his house there was Nga-hihi-o-te-ra. lukatoatoa was an elder brother of Tupatunui. His descendants lived on the land from Manawatu down as far as and including No. 11. They were known as Ngatikokopu, Ngatikura, Ngatipouwhenua, and Ngatimaikuku. They lived as far south as Hokio Stream. I can trace some of the lines from Tukatoatoa ; not all. There is a peculiarity about Moutere : the vegetation on the summit will not burn. I saw Patupaiarehe myself on Moutere. The elders of Muaupoko did not tell me whose they were. The elders of Muaupoko did not tell me when I was a child that Amarumoari lived at Moutere, but they have since. It was when I was living here, about the time of the great earthquake—after the earthquake. I believe it was commonly known among the Muaupoko at that time that Amarumoari lived at Moutere. More recently I heard that Noa te Whata claimed Moutere as a descendant of Amarumoari when he was disputing with Bangirurupuni. Te Baraku told me about this dispute. Hoani Puihi told me that the land had been divided by the elders. I will refer to the boundaries of the divisions later. Noa te Whata and others fixed the boundaries. Hoani Puihi informed me that the divisions had been made. Ido not know anything of importance about Bereao. His brother Aorere was the father of Bangiheke. Bangiheke lived at Papaitonga, and his pa was on Papaitonga Island. That was the pa from which he killed Tawhakahiku and Mangere, two of the ancestors of Bangitane. Aitupaoa was with Te Bangiheke. Tawhakahiku and Mangere were killed at Beporoa. Ido not know anything about Tamaki te Hau, or Taingaruru, or Whakarongotai. Ngataitoko lived at Papaitonga. Bangiheke left for the south, and Papaitonga remained in the possession of the elder branch of the family. I do not know where Ngataitoko married Hikaotaota; I have not heard. They lived at Papaitonga after their marriage. Ngataitoko killed Te Uira at Otaewa. Ido not know where he came from to kill Te Uira, but he returned to his island at Papaitonga. There were no pas at Horowhenua at that period. Temou, the child of Te Uira, was spared and taken by Tupohonui to Te Ihuraua. Tupohonui was a descendant of Hamua; he was concerned in the killing of Te Uira. He brought up Temou, who, it is said, married Puakiteao. I have not heard that Temou ever returned to Horowhenua, or that Te Lira's death was avenged. I have not heard where Temou and Puakiteao were married, but I suppose they lived on the lands of Puakiteao in the Fortymile Bush. I have not heard where Kawainga te Bongo and Pariri were born, but I have been told that Ngataitoko lived at Papaitonga after Bangiheke. Te Bangiheke went to Waitawa and Otaki, and also to Te Horo. In the time of Ngataitoko the descendants of Tukatoatoa and Tupatunui occupied all the country between Manawatu and Pukerua. The descendants of Tukatoatoa did not go further south than the Hokio Stream. At that time Hamua were on the other side of Tararua Bange, at Mangatainoka. The descendants of Tukatoatoa occupied as far up the Manawatu Biver as Paiaka. The Bangitane descendants of Tireo occupied the country above Paiaka. I made a mistake in saying " descendants of Tireo." Ido not know which branch of Bangitane was there. Some of the Ngatiapa lived with them —the descendants of Bangituhaha. The Hamua first became known here when the descendants of Hamua intermarried with those of Ngataitoko. I cannot trace Hukui from Hamua. I can trace Te Angiimua from Hamua; his marriage with Hineitohua first brought Hamua on to this land :—

G.— 2a

70

Hamua I Wahatuara I Hinerautekawa I Rakaimaro I Korakotaiwaho I Te Kuramonehu I Tairea I Mahu = Tupohonui Te Raikapua Te Angiimua = Hineitohua All Te Baikapua's children came here when Te Angiimua married Hineitohua. They all married local women. Their names were Hura te Papa, who married Tui; Puanga, whose wife's name I forget; Turanga, who married Wairoto ; and Te Whana-a-hiko, whose wife I also forget just now. His descendants are in Wairarapa. Kawainga went south to Waikanae to live. She married Mangere. lam mistaken; I do not know who she married. Te Bongopatahi and Pariri lived here. I do not remember who the former married. Te Korongawhenua went south with his father, Te Bangiheke. Hukui, the son of Korongawhenua, came here after his marriage. I believe he married Pariri between Te Horo and Waikanae. Those were Te Hukui's lands. He died at Horowhenua; his grave is on this land; all Ngatipariri know of it. Pariri died at Horowhenua. I have heard so. Te Umu-tawa-o-pariri and the boundary are the only things on this land in connection with which the name of Pariri is specially mentioned. Ido not know of anything being named after Te Bongopatahi. Ido not agree with Paki's evidence about the alleged dispute between the sisters about the eel-pa; that is not true. There was a boundary between the sisters. I did not hear why it was laid down. I heard that Te Bongopatahi was on the north side and Pariri on the south. Te Bongopatahi did not come to the Hokio Stream; that was owned by Ngatikokopu and the other descendants of Tukatoatoa. The boundary between the descendants of Tukatoatoa and Te Bongopatahi commenced at Baumatangi, thence to Te Beti, thence to Pakingahau, turning westward to Taingaehe, thence northerly, passing west of Moutere to Pakauhokio, thence to Whangaingai and to Ngatokorua, and thence northward. The Ngatikokopu land was seaward of this boundary. I can point out on the plan the places named in the boundary I gave this morning. [Witness then pointed out Baumatangi, Te Beti, Te Pakingahau, Taingaehe, Pakauhokio, and Whaingaingai.] Ido not know where the boundary between Ngatikokopu and Te Bongo was laid down. They were living each on their own lands in Te Bongo's time. Ngamaihi was the chief of the Ngatikokopu; he lived at Upokopoito, near the mouth of Manawatu. He had eel-lagoons at Pakaikai, north of Poroutawhao. The Ngatikokopu and other hapus at Ngamaihi had a settlement at Te Beti. They came down as far as Hokio. They owned that stream. Ngatipariri occupied the land south of Hokio, Bangiheheke and his people. Te Bangihikaka was the child of Te Angiimua and Hineitohua. He lived on this land; built Waipata and Pukeiti —fighting pas. He conquered Ngamaihi and his hapus because they interfered with Te Piro's eel-pot. I do not know where Te Piro came from, but Baniera and others are his descendants. Te Piro went to put eel-pots in the Ngatikokopu lakes and they took them out. I forget the names of the lakes, but they are on what is now Ngatihuia land. Te Piro complained to Te Bangihikaka at Papaitonga. This happened before Waipata Pa was built and Te Bangihikaka was still at Papaitonga. Te Piro told Bangihikaka that an indignity had been placed upon him—his eel-pots had been removed. Bangihikaka said, " You are like a child; you should kill the ngarara on the land before you attempt to take fish out of the water ; but leave it to me." Te Bangihikaka then went with his war-party to attack Ngamaihi. Ngamaihi and his hapus were defeated, by Bangihikaka. The survivors fled to Ngatiapa and Bangitane. Some of their descendants are still with those tribes, others are with Muaupoko here. Makere te Bou, Buihi Wuunu, Ani Kanara te Baorao, and Ariki Baorao are some of them. Te Harawira Tamai te Banganui and Haratiera were descendants of those who went to Ngatiapa; they were both relatives of mine. Matiu Kaueka, Te Matenga Peketaro, Hemi, Mere Pukaihua, and Hemi te Bangitakoro are also descendants of those who fled to Ngatiapa. After these hapus were conquered their land became the property of Te Bangihikaka and Ngatipariri. The boundaries between Pariri and Te Bongo had been laid down some time before the conquest of the hapus. Tireo was killed at Paparewa by Ngatiapa after the expulsion of the hapus. Paparewa is a little below Moutoa. Ido not know which side of the Manawatu Biver it is. After the death of Tireo and Marama another Bangitane chief, the younger brothers of Tireo, Te Buatapu, and Potangotango, came to Horowhenua with their families. Potangotango married a woman who was brought by Muaupoko from Wairarapa side of range: her name was Pirihongi. Tairatu, son of Buatapu, married Maewa, a descendant of Pariri. Pariri Kopani = Te Kapa I Maewa After the marriage of Tairatu and Maewa, Te Bangihikaka gave Tairatu the land taken from Ngamaihi's hapus. This was the first land acquired by the Puakiteao family in Horowhenua. I know the names of all the children of Bangihikaka. They were Kiore, Whitirea, Matiti, and

71

G.—2a

Niho. [Gives genealogy.] Bangihikaka had a half-sister, Te Hikapirau. Tutangatanga was her father. Her descendants can give the whakapapa from her. [Witness gives genealogy from Pariri through Tui.] Te Bangihikaka built Waipata and Pukeiti Pas when the Puakiteao family came to Horowhenua, and Tairatu married Maewa. Te Waikiekie and Te Boha-o-te-kawau were all built about the same time. The Hokio Stream was included in the gift to Tairatu. Kotuku was the chief of it in his day. The boundary between Pariri and Bongopatahi was the southern boundary of the gift to Tairatu. It ran from Hokiopuni to Tirotirowhetu, thence to Ohenga, thence to Waiwherowhero, Patoitoi, Te Koropu, turning thence to Te Baumatangi. Since the time of the gift by Te Bangihikaka the Ngatipariri have not had any pas in Hokio. Tairatu and his brother, Te Horapoto, built Waikiekie and Te Boha-o-te-kawau, assisted by Ngatipariri, Ngatitieri, and Hamua. Buatapu came here with his sons, Tairatu and Horapoto, but he went further south. I do not know where Buatapu's wife went. Her name was Hokomata. Buatapu was killed in a fight in the South Island by Bangitane and Ngatihuia. The Bangitane pa was called Patere. Potangotango lived here with his wife. Ido not know where he died. She was a captive from Wairarapa. Potangotango also married a woman named Tokai, of Ngatihauiti. She was brought here a captive. Hauiti Whaiau Puka Hikanui I Pupuke = Rangipakinga I Tokai = Potangotango I Tapuae I Taueki Tokai was known among the Ngatiapa as a Bangiwhakaturia. Her ancestor was taken prisoner by Ngatiapa. Te Biunga came here at the same time as Potangotango. I heard that she married here. She married Taniwha, of Ngatikahungunu and Hamua, not the son of Kopani. I heard in 1890 that she lived at Papaitonga. When Buatapu came here Papaitonga belonged to Ngatipariri. The Hamua had also settled here. There was a reason for building the pas I have spoken of. They were required as a protection against Ngatiapa, who it was thought might seek to avenge the death of Ngamaihi, chief of Ngatikokopu, and the other hapus who were expelled from Horowhenua. The Court adjourned till the 28th instant.

Levin, Friday, 28th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —-continued. Wieihana Hunia's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : I wish to correct a statement I made yesterday. I said that Mangere was not the husband of Kawainga, but I am now clear that he was. Takiari, of Ngatipariri, married Hineikimihia, a descendant of Te Biunga. Motaitai, a descendant of Puakiteao, married Papaka Hokopuna, of Pariri, through Tawhowhao. I never heard before 1890 that Te Biunga lived here. It is not true that the children of Puakiteao were born at Te Koropu. Te Baraku was mistaken when she said so. Te Koropu is a swamp, unfit for occupation. I have not heard that they were born at Te Karapu. The only attack made by Bauparaha on Muaupoko in his first invasion was at Waimapihi, Pukerua (Vol. 1, fol. 24). That was the same war-party that took my ancestors Pikinga away. Te Bangihaeata married her at Turakina. Te Bauparaha came to this district a second time. When Muaupoko discovered that Te Waimai had been killed by Te Bauparaha's party they sent messengers to assemble all Muaupoko at Papaitonga. Toheriri and Bauparaha had gone back to Ohau to await Muaupoko. They had made friends, and Bauparaha wanted Muaupoko to assemble and prepare canoes to take him across to Kapiti. When Muaupoko assembled at Papaitonga they made an attack on Bauparaha at Te Wii. The Ngatitoa were defeated and Te Bauparaha's children killed. Te Bauparaha and Te Bakaherea were the only persons who escaped. Te Bangihiwinui, Tanguru, Ngawhakawa, Tawhati-a-henga, Tawhati-a-Tumata, Te Bangihouhia, Warakihi, and Tamati Maunu were the principal people of Muaupoko who took part in that fight. I did not hear Kotuku's name mentioned, or Paipai's. Takare was with Muaupoko. Te Bangi Paetahi and Pehi Turoa had returned to Wanganui before the fight. The first man killed of Bauparaha's party was Te Whata-a-Ti. Te Bangihouhia killed him. After Te Wii some of Muaupoko returned to Papaitonga, others to Horowhenua. The pas had been built on the islands at that time. Te Bauparaha followed them up and took Waipata, and killed one woman; the other Muaupoko escaped. Te Bangihouhia and others of Ngatipariri occupied the pa. They escaped into the bush, and went back to W T aipata after Bauparaha went away. Te Bauparaha went back for his canoes, and brought them up the Hokio Stream to Baumatangi. He attacked Waikiekie and Te Boha-o-te-kawau and Waipata. The occupants of these pas abandoned them and paddled up the lake in their canoes. Te Bauparaha pursued and shot some of them. All the other pas were also abandoned. Thirty persons were unable to

Gk—2a

72

embark on the canoes at Te Boha-o-te-kawau and were slaughtered. Bauparaha and party wenfc on to Manawatu after defeating Muaupoko. They killed Tokipoto at Te Hotuiti; also Tβ Marake and others; and went on to mouth of Eangitikei and attacked and defeated the hapus of Ngatiapa who had met him at Waitotara. Eauparaha then came back to Kapiti, and was followed by a war-party of Ngatiapa, who were joined by Muaupoko. The combined force attacked Ngatitoa at Waimea and killed Te Peehi's children. After this Te Eauparaha went to Papaitonga and killed Toheriri, near the Oh.au Eiver; or, rather, he was caught there, and killed at Kapiti.' After this was the battle of Waiorua, in which Te Eauparaha defeated the combined tribes. And later Te Eauparaha defeated the Muaupoko at Waitarere. Some of Muaupoko were taken prisoners to Kapiti. I heard that there were people living in the Horowhenua pas at time of Waitarere. Te Eangihouhia was at Waipata. Kotuku had gone to Arapaoa. He and his family migrated after "Waiorua. After Waitarere Eauparaha returned to Kapiti; then the Ngatiraukawas began to arrive, and Eauparaha, accompanied by Ngatitoa and Ngatiraukawa, attacked Papaitonga, and killed Takare and Paipai. Hengahenga was taken prisoner. This was the last attack by Eauparaha on Muaupoko; he went to the South Island in search of Kotuku. Whatanui had arrived and made peace (about 1829). There was no more fighting between Eauparaha and Ngatiapa after Waiorua. Pikinga had been sent back to Ngatiapa. Te Eangihouhia was at Horowhenua when Takare and Paipai were killed. He could not have lived at Pukehou at that time, although his father's lands were there. When Whatanui arrived at Kapiti Te Eauparaha suggested that his enemies—the Muaupoko and Eangitane —should be killed, but Te Whatanui wished to spare them, and keep them " mana c atawkai hei iwi mana." Te Whatanui then went to Karekare and made peace. Ngatiapa were on their way to Otaki to attack Whatanui. Whatanui took some of Muaupoko prisoners at Karekare; none were killed; most of them were women. Te Whatanui asked where the men were, and was told that they had gone with a taua composed of Ngatiapa, Eangitane, and Muaupoko to Otaki. Te Whatanui sent Konihi and others after them. They overtook the taua, which returned to Karekare. Te Konihi told Te Hakeke that Whatanui wished to make peace. Peace was made. The principal man of Muaupoko was Taiweherua, younger brother of Kotuku. Tanguru was not there; he was at Wanganui. Te Eangihouhia was at Horowhenua. I have not heard that Taueki was there. Mahuri, I heard, was there. After peace was made Whatanui, accompanied by Muaupoko, came south by the old inland track. They arrived at Te Kawiu, and found Te Eangihouhia, Taueki, and others of Muaupoko there. Te Eangihouhia wanted to kill Te Whatanui, but was restrained by his friends, because peace had been made between Te Hakeke and Taiweherua. Whatanui went on to Otaki, but left his mokai with Muaupoko. His purpose in doing so was to test the adherence of Muaupoko to the peace that had been made. Whatanui returned to Horowhenua from Otaki. He was met at mouth of Hokio Stream by Muaupoko with his slave. As his slave had not been killed he knew that Muaupoko had adhered to the peace that had been made. He and his people—the Muaupoko—made a clearing at Te Watutua. Tanguru was at Wanganui; he lived there, and at Oroua and Eangitikei, with Te Hakeke. Taueki was here. Te Eangihouhia was at Waipata. They all helped to make the clearing? Te Whatanui went backwards and forwards to Otaki. He was at ' Otaki at time of Mahurangi. Muaupoko and Eangitane went to Waikanae in response to an invitation of Te Puoho to take part in a feast of pumpkins and corn. I heard that four hundred of Eangitane and Muaupoko were killed. Whatanui tried hard to dissuade Muaupoko and Eangitane from going. Tiweta got together a war-party to avenge Mahurangi. They killed some Ngatiawa and took others prisoners. There was no more fighting after this until Haowhenua. Muaupoko and Eangitane were helpless after the slaughter at Mahurangi. I heard that when my father was born Te Hakeke sang a song relating to. Horowhenua. The purport of the song was that Hunia was to reunite his tribes, which had been at enmity. Te Hakeke's only connection with this land was his marriage with Kaewa. Whatanui brought Hector McDonald from Otaki to Horowhenua to lease his land —I think about 1857 or 1858. Whatanui leased the land south of Hokio to Mr. McDonald —between Hokio and Mahoenui. Muaupoko did not take part in this lease. Kawana Hunia came here from Eangitikei, and sent Hanita Kowhai to McDonald to demand the rent. I went with Hanita, who asked McDonald for the rent. McDonald said that Muaupoko had nothing to do with the lands ; Whatanui leased it to him. Hanita said, "If you do not pay us any rent we will kill your cattle." McDonald said, " B pai ana." Hunia assembled the people and proposed that McDonald's cattle should be killed. Hanita, Eewiri, Hoani Puihi, and other elders of Muaupoko supported him, and the cattle were killed. They continued to kill cattle until 1872. After 1873 more cattle were killed, and the people who killed them were arrested. Kemp and I bailed them out. The elders of Muaupoko when the first killing of cattle took place were Eewiri, Te Eangirurupuni, Matene Pakauwera, Whatukituki, Tamati Maunu, Te Matenga, Tinotahi, Pioka, Te Eaorao, Maru, and Ihaia Taueki. Noa te Whata was in Wanganui. I cannot recollect any more men. Makere te Eou, Iritana, Euta te Kiri, Hiria Amorangi, Pirihira Arahura, Konihi, Katarina Eaorao, Te Heke-i-te-wai (wife of Eangirurupuni), Te Marika, Earoraro, Heni Wairangi, Eipeka Whakaua, and Nukenuke. I cannot remember any more. In 1869 there was a large meeting at Kakariki called by nga rangatira ote Hauhau. Eangitane, Ngatiapa, Wanganui, and other tribes attended it. One of the purposes of the meeting was to call upon Hunia to sheath his sword, and not use it any more against the Hauhaus. Hunia agreed, but said that if he saw any fleas across the Manawatu he would pour water on them. In 1870 the Kupe meeting took place. Te Atiawa, Ngatitoa, Ngatiraukawa, Ngatikahungunu, Ngatimaniapoto, Ngatiwhiti, Ngatiapa, Ngatiupokoiri, assembled at Horowhenua for that meeting. Hunia called the meeting. Kemp had nothing to do with it; he was fighting against Te Kooti. Hunia and the other elders of the Muaupoko got up the meeting. Hunia lived permanently at Eangitikei, but he came to Horowhenua at times. The tribes who assembled at Kupe knew that the meeting was about Horowhenua. I was present at the meeting. I brought food in drays. I heard what took place at the meeting. Hunia wished Te Whatanui's mana removed from Horowhenua, and that he

73

G.—2a

should go back to Otaki, the part occupied by Ngatiraukawa. There was nothing settled. I think Hunia went to Wairarapa after Te Kupe to consult his Hamua relatives and the chiefs of Wairarapa. After this—in 1871—he set fire to Watene's houses at Kouturoa. The Pipiriki pa was built by Hunia and Kemp and their tribe, the Muaupoko. Kemp was at Horowhenua when the houses were burnt; he and Hunia and some of the Ngatiapa came here together from Eangitikei. I did not hear that Hunia and Kemp were in communication before that. Te Peeti visited my father at Eangitikei. I heard them speaking about the Ngatiraukawa who were occupying their lands. Aorangi and Tuwhakatupua, in Manawatu, were Peeti's lands, which were in occupation by Ngatiraukawa. They proposed to bring together the remnants of all their tribes and obtain the assistance of Karaitiana Takamoana and others, with the object of ejecting Ngatiraukawa. The five tribes— Eangitane, Muaupoko, Ngatiapa, Ngatikahungunu, and Hamua—all attended the Court of 1873. I was born in 1852, according to Hamuera te Eaekokiritia. I was brought to Horowhenua when a child. I have been told that I was taken from my mother's breast. Wirihana Maihi, my uncle, was dead. Ido not remember him. He is buried at Horowhenua. I heard that he lived at Horowhenua. He had a flock of geese at Horowhenua, which I sold to buy clothes with. I remember the great earthquake (1855). I remember the elders telling us to get out of the house as soon as possible. It was in the evening. I remember hearing Hereora calling out. I believe it was in the summer. It was some time after the earthquake that I went with Hanita to demand the rent from Hector McDonald. I think it was in 1860, or before that. I returned to Parewanui for good. It was a little before the sale of the Eangitikei-Manawatu Block. I was at Parewanui when the money was paid in 1866. I returned to Parewanui before the Ngatiapa and Ngatiraukawa built their pas in 1863 or 1864. I lived with Hanita Kowhai, Te Eangirurupuni, and Tiripa at Horowhenua. Te Eae-o-te-karaka was our kainga. Hanita Kowhai had a cultivation at Poumaru. I sometimes went with him to work ; at other times I accompanied Te Eangirurupuni te Te Kawiu, Te Watutua, Mairua, and Ngurunguru. Te Eangirurupuni grew potatoes, corn, and wheat. I helped to dig the ground and plant the crops. Besides Poumaru Hanita cultivated at Otaewa (which was a kainga of ours), Te Waikoukou, Te Pu-a-te-ngao—a cultivation beyond Kouturoa used by Hanita and others. Ido not know any more. Te Eangirurupuni had no eel-pas. Only two persons had eel-pas in my time here—Hanita Kowhai and Noa te Whata. Pukaahu-a-te-Horapoto was Hanita's eel-pa. Tonganui was the name of Noa's eel-weir. No other Muaupoko had any eel-pas at that time. Makere's husband used apa called Pahorekino, by permission of Te Whatanui, who was given eel-pots as a return for the privilege. Hanita bought his eel-pa from Te Whatanui for £2 10s. Noa also bought his eel-pa from Te Whatanui, the price being £3 10s. Both these pas were bought in December, 1849. It is recorded in a book which I have in my possession. I remember Noa te Whata coming here from Wanganui; he brought a bullock-dray with him. I never saw Tanguru here when I was living here. I heard that he lived at Manawatu with Eangitane. I saw Kemp here once; it was the first time I had ever seen him. He came with some of Ngati te Upokoiri to get a horse. I heard he was a policeman. He and Hoani Puihi quarrelled about the horse, and Kemp went away without it. He went to Manawatu. The descendants of Potangotango had no eel-pas in Hokio Stream when I was living here. Te Whatanui had the sole mana over the stream then. Tamati Maunu lived at Te Eae-o-te-karaka. He cultivated at Te Makomako. I forgot to say that Hanita cultivated there also. Pioka worked at Te Hopuhopu, Te Kawiu, Te Watutua, Mairua. I can point out on the ground the cultivations of all the persons I saw working when I was living here. Pioka, Te Eangirurupuni, Matene Pakauwera, Te Hapimana Tohu, Himiona Hopu, and others prepared flax at Mairua when I was living here, for sale to Kebbell and Cook. Himiona te Hopu and Hanita Kowhai were the two principal men of Muaupoko when I was here. Of the younger people, Hoani Puihi and Maru were the most prominent. I did not see Ihaia Taueki take any prominent part in the affairs of Muaupoko ;he was always a silent man. I never saw Eangihouhia; he died at Eangitikei before I was born. Hanita Kowhai was taken prisoner. I know how he came back. He was captured by my tribes—Wanganui and Ngatituwharetoa—when very young. He returned with Pehi Turoa, who was going to Ohariu by canoe, and put into Eangitikei, where Kaewa recognised him and kept him. She brought him on to Horowhenua; Ngatiapa accompanied them. Ihaia Taueki was captured at the same time as Hanita. Taueki and some of Ngatiapa fetched him from Wanganui. Whatanui did not interfere with Muaupoko on north side of Hokio, but he had cultivations on both sides of Hokio when I lived here. He had houses and cultivations north of Hokio. Hanita Kowhai, Eewi, Wi Perahama, Tamati Maunu had cultivations south of Hokio in my time. Hanita Kowhai told me when I was living here that he was the only person Te Whatanui cared for, and that he objected to all the other Muaupoko. Te Wiiti Tirotiro, a relative of Te Whatanui's, came to see Hanita, and I heard Te Wiiti tell Hanita to keep friendly with Whatanui, because he was the only one Te Whatanui cared for, and that perhaps Te Whatanui might show him some consideration regarding his (Hanita's) lands. I and my elders used to go in the direction of Waiwiri to try the eel-lagoons. Hanita caught eels there. Hanita never told me that I was only here on a visit. We used to put eels in the lagoons on the south side of block—Waitawhiti, Waikoukou, and others. When I went to Parewanui from Horowhenua Hunia kept me there. Okauia: Hanita used to take me there to catch eels. It is near Waitawhiti. Hanita told me that it had belonged to Te Eangihouhia. Waiwherowhero :An eel-pa; Hanita caught eels there. There was no one living at Mahoenui in my time. The Ngatiraukawa were living at Eakauhamama. Te Paea, of Ngatiraukawa, Hukiki, and Te Ahikaramu were living at Muhunoa. Tokiwhati: An eel-pa in the bush near Waikoukou. Although we caught eels at the places I have named, Whatanui had the land, and had leased it. The pas in Hokio named by some of the witnesses in this case were old pas. They were never used by the Muaupoko after Whatanui came here, until after 1886. It is not true that they have been used continuously. The Ngatiraukawa worked all the eel-pas in Hokio after they came, except those purchased by Hanita and Noa. I heard in 1890 of a post in Hokio called Temou. Never

10— G. 2a.

Gγ.— 2A

74

heard of it before. It was called Temou after Kemp and I quarrelled: I have seen the post. I used to see it when paddling up and down the stream with Hanita and Noa, but they never told me it was called Te Pou-o-temou. It was, in my opinion, put in to form an embankment for an eel-pa. I know the name Mounuwahine. I do not know where it is exactly. It belonged to Ngatipariri. Potangotango had no land here. I never heard from my elders that Papaitonga was apaof Te Biunga. I only heard it after Kemp and I commenced to quarrel in 1890. Major Kemp is a Wanganui chief. He lives there. He may have been a teacher here. Himiona Hopu never told me that Kemp had assisted him. There was a church here in my time ; Himiona te Hopu was the lay reader. There was only one —the Church of England. I never heard of there having been two at any other time. I have never heard that Tanguru or Kemp had cultivations at Te Kawiu. Tanguru had a cultivation at Te Whare-o-tauira. I heard so from my elders. I can identify it on the ground. I deny that Tanguru was the leader of Muaupoko against Tukorehu. It originated with Bangihouhia and Te Bangiwhakaotia. They went to Waikiekie to consult Tanguru and arrange concerted action against Tukorehu. Tanguru killed the first man. It was long after this that Tanguru lived at Oroua. There is a place at Oroua called after Kemp's mother. Tanguru went with the expedition that killed Ngarara. Ihaia Taueki has always lived here, on both sides of Hokio. He came here after introduction of Christianity. His sister Hereora has always lived here. Makere te Bou has always lived north of Hokio. Wirihana Tarewa, north of Hokio; went to and fro to Wanganui. Bewiri te Whiumairangi lived on both sides of Hokio; he went with Kotuku; returned here long after Christianity. Te Bangirurupuni lived on north side of Hokio, at Waikanae ; he had two kaingas. Noa te Whata went with Kotuku; north of Hokio. Motai Taueki lived north of Hokio. Paki te Hunga lived south of Hokio. Hoani Puihi has lived on both sides of Hokio; he went with Kotuku. Baniera went with Noa te Whata. I think Heta was born at Arapaoa. Motai Taueki returned here about 1865. Buta te Kiri always lived here. Kerehi Tomo always lived here. The Court adjourned till the 29th instant.

Levin, Saturday, 29th May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 o'clock. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Wieihana Hunia's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : Tamati Maunu lived at Te Eae-o-te-karaka when I was here. Hoani Puihi lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Paki te Hunga had no kainga of his own at that time ; he lived with Hanita Kowhai at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Matene Pakauwera lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. He cultivated at Te Kapa, near Te Kawiu, and at Ngurunguru; also at Mairua, near Ngatihuia boundary. Pene Tikara was not here. He came in 1866. Pire, Tiaki, and Hana came in 1873. Hunia brought the two latter from Porirua. Their mother, Turikatuku, was not here. She had been taken prisoner. She was captured at Ngurunguru. Himiona Taiweherua was here. He lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka, and cultivated at same places as Matene Pakauwera. They were of the same hapu. Hoone Tupou (No. 21 Schedule) was not here the whole time I lived here. He came from Wairau while I was here. He was a descendant of those who went with Kotuku. I did not hear what Muaupoko said to him. His father was a Ngatirarua. I think Hopa te Piki came to Horowhenua before Hone, but I cannot remember. Hone cultivated at Te Kawiu, a little further north than Matene Pakauwera. Karaitiana Tarawahi was at Wairarapa when I lived here. He returned while I was here. Cultivated at Te Kawiu. He is a descendant of Pariri; but Whatanui had the land south of Hokio then. Mata Huikirangi was here. She lived with her mother, Baroraro, at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Ariki te Baorao lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. His brother, Winara, was also here. They worked at Te Hopuhopu. Their parents were here. They also worked at Te Ope-a-te-wai-mairua. Matenga Tinotahi lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. He worked at Te Kawiu and Mairua. I can point out all the cultivations at Te Kawiu. Hetariki Takapou was here. He and his wife lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka with her parents. He worked at Te Kawiu. I was here when he took his second wife—Mereana. He lived with her at Te Bae-o-te-karaka, and afterwards went to Kouturoa with Tamati Maunu and Hetariki. Tamati Maunu and Hetariki also cultivated at Makomako. Waata Muruahi was not here in my time. I think he came in 1867 or 1868 from Wharekauri. None of his brothers were here. Tahana Muruahi came quite recently. Te Porana came after Tahana Muruahi. I do not know that Tamati or Hori Muruahi have ever been here. Manihera te Bau was living here with his wife when I was here. Herewini Bakautihia was at Bangitikei. He was one of those who went with Kotuku. He came here in my time, and worked at Te Kawiu. Bihipeti Tamaki was here. She was a child. She lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka with her elders. Her mother died while I was here. Waata Tamatea was not here. He lived in Manawatu. I never saw him living here, or his sister, Mere Tohu. I never saw Bora Tohu living here, or Merehira Tohu. I never saw Kingi te Patu living here ; I heard that he lived at Manawatu. I never heard of his living here till after 1873. After that he lived permanently. Do not know where he worked. Hori te Pa was not here. I believe he was at Nelson, and went from there to Manawatu some time between 1850 and 1860. Mere Mionga was not here, or any of her children. I think they were at Bangitikei. Heni Haimona te Iki was not here. None of her children were here. Buihi did not return here periodically as she stated. Ema te Whango was not here ; she was at Taupo. She came here in 1870, or a little before. None of the family were here. Her children all came with her. Bangimairehau came here from Arapaoa with his Ngatiawa wife, Bepora, while I was here. They

75

G.—2a

returned to Wellington. Bangimairehau came back with a woman he had abducted. Muaupoko returned the woman to her husband. Bangimairehau followed her, and I did not see him again for a long time. The next time I saw him he was living at Oturoa with a woman called Pareraukawa. He came here several times, and returned to Manawatu. I have heard from Muaupoko that he did not live here permanently until he married Makere. Hehe Whakaka was never here at all that I know of, nor her brother, Hutana Whakaka. Batima Potau never lived here. He lived at Porirua. Hamiora Potau never lived here; he lived at Porirua and Bangitikei. Waitere Kakiwa I have seen here, but he lived at Te Iwi-te-kai, Manawatu. Matiaha Mokai was not here ; he lived at Wairarapa; did not belong here. Hori te Mawae was a Wanganui chief. Aperahama Bangiwetea was a chief of Ngatiapa. Te Miha-o-te-Bangi belonged to Wairarapa; never saw him living here. Te Whatahoro never lived here; lives at Papawai, Wairarapa. Te Peeti te Aweawe never lived here. Hoani Meihana, I heard, lived here at one time; he was not here when I was here. Ani Kanara Tihore lived at Porirua; she came here when I was living here, and returned to Porirua ; quite recently she came and lived with Kerehi. Turuki was the wife of Maru; she was living at Te Bae-o-te-karaka when I was here; they cultivated at Te Kawiu. Mere Karena was here when I lived here ; she was unmarried, and lived with Te Bangirurupuni and Te Matenga Tinotahi. She went from here to marry Karena. They had four children. None of them returned to this land. Horopapera Atirangi never lived here; he came on visits occasionally. Karena Taiawhio and Buahoata never lived here so far as I know. Teoti te Hou was living with Hoani Puihi at Te Bae-o-te-karaka when I was here. Hoani thrashed him, and he ran away. I never saw him again until recently. Harerota was a Moriori. The old lease of Horowhenua was in Hanita Kowhai's custody—not the lease of land south of Hokio, but on the north side. I saw the lease in 1870. After Hanita's death his widow handed the lease to Hunia, who assembled the Kaumatua of Muaupoko and gave it to them—that is, to Bangirurupuni, Ihaia Taueki, Matene Pakauwera, Noa te Whata, Herewini Bakautihia, Ihaka te Bangihouhia, Tamati Maunu, Bewiri te Whiumairangi, and Hoani Puihi. The lease was signed by Te Whatanui, Te Bangirurupuni, and others. Hunia proposed that no more rent should be paid to Whatanui. I believe that lease remained in force till Kemp leased the land after 1873. The first time the rent was paid after Hunia told Muaupoko not to pay any more to Whatanui, Te Bangirurupuni and Bewiri and others took it to Hunia, who said, " Take it to your relative Kemp " ; and they did so. Kemp and Hunia were at Pipiriki building a pa. The amount was £105. Hunia told me this. Hunia built his pataka at Otaewa, Horowhenua, in 1878 or 1879. I attended the Otaki Court in 1868. The Ngatiraukawa provided the food—Karanamu Kapukai and others. Some of the pigs were procured from Muhunoa. I took some pigs to Otaki; they belonged to Hanita. Te Bangihikaka had a kumara plantation at Otaewa. He had a there. Hengahenga stole kumaras out of the pit, and Te Bangihikaka bewitched her. Te Waka Tupou: A kainga of Pariri on shore of lake near Waipata. Te Hukui, husband of Pariri, died there. Waihau (in No. 10): A kainga and mahinga of Bangihikaka. There is a spring there in which he used to steep hinau-berries. Hamoana : A kainga of Ngatipariri (in No. 6). Tiau, one of the descendants of Bangihikaka, died and is buried there. The boundary I have given between Bongopatahi and Ngamaihi's hapus has been admitted by the kaumatuas of Muaupoko. Bangirurupuni, Hanita Kowhai, Bewiri, Te Hapimana, Herewini te Bakautihia, Matene Pakauwera supported the boundary. Noa te Whata and Heta te Whata denied the existence of the boundary. Hoani Puihi acted as arbitrator between them, and the boundary was laid off as it had been in ancient times between Bongopatahi and the hapus that were expelled. Te Bongopatahi and Ngamaihi fixed the boundary first. I suppose so, because Ngamaihi was the chief of Ngatikokopu and the other hapus who lived with them. The reason the boundary was renewed was because Ngatihine laid claim to all the land north of Hokio. When the boundary question was decided it was found that Noa te Whata and Ngatihine had no land at all north of the Hokio Stream. The Court adjourned till the 31st instant.

Levin, Monday, 31st May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Wieihana Hunia's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : I have something to say about the genealogy given by Kemp of the descendants of Biunga. He gave Te Urukarere as the husband of Wairoto. I say that Turanga was her husband. I admit that Wairoto was a descendant of Te Biunga. Turanga was a descendant of Hamua through Te Baikapua. Te Raikapua Te Angiimua Hura te Papa Puanga Turanga=Wairoto Te Rangiwhakatikaia = Te Mate I I Paehora Hineiawhitia Te Heke-i-te-wai Noa te Whata (no issue)

G.—2a

76

Ido not know Waiorua, Te Peke, Te Baukatauri, or Te Aopineki as children of Wairoto. Wairoto did not marry a second husband. Pakauhokio: A kainga beyond Mairua. Himiona and I cultivated there; we also scraped flax there. Pukearuhe : A kainga north side of Horowhenua Lake; Himiona, Te Baorao, and I worked there. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness: Kawana Hunia and others instructed me in the history of Horowhenua. I heard that Tupatunui came from Hawaiki in the canoe " Kurahaupo." I do not know where he came from to Taikoria. I do not know what tribes were living at Horowhenua and other places along the coast when he came here. I heard that Kupe first took possession of all the coastal lands from Taranaki southward. Apa came by " Kurahaupo." His descendants came to- live on this coast. Tupatunui and Tukatoatoa were known as Ngatikauwae. Amarumoari, son of Tupatunui, lived at Moutere. I do not know how many people lived there with him. His land extended from Manawatu to Pukerua. Tupatunui's descendants occupied the whole of that territory. Ido not know why he did not take up the country beyond Pukerua. He was killed there, but his descendants remained on the land until they were driven off by Te Bauparaha. I have not heard that my ancestor Wharekohu killed Tupatunui. I heard that Ngatiira killed him. Wharekohu was a descendant of Kupe. Ngataitoko and the descendants of Tukatoatoa owned the land from Manawatu to Ohau. Bangiheheke and his descendants owned the land from Ohau southward. They were Ngaitiere and Ngatirangi. The descendants of Tukatoatoa were confined to north of Hokio Stream ; they lived on friendly terms with the descendants of Tupatunui for several generations. I cannot trace Te Piro from Pariri. I was never taught his genealogy. Paki was right in saying that Te Piro went to Manawatu to catch eels, and that Ngamaihi insulted him. Hamua, Ngaitiere, Ngatirangi, Ngatipariri attacked and defeated Ngamaihi's hapus. They were led by Bangihikaka. Hamua were connected with Ngatipariri at that time. I have not heard whether they were asked to come and assist Ngatipariri to drive off Ngamaihi's hapus. The conquest of Ngamaihi's hapu and the wresting of our land from Te Whatanui are my ringakaha. My ahika claim is from Amarumoari, through Pariri. Their descendants have always occupied the land. My claim by ahika is over the whole block from Ngatokorua to Waiwiri. It all belongs to me and my hapu. Pariri and Te Bongo divided it in their time; but, notwithstanding that, I have rights on both sides of the boundary, because Whatanui had taken the land, and the descendants of Pariri recovered it from him. I got the land back, and therefore have control over the lands of both Pariri and Te Bongo. I am in the same position as that occupied by my ancestor Amarumoari. lam not a descendant of Te Bongopatahi, but I claim a right to her land because it had been taken by Te Whatanui, and the people became his dependants. They had submitted to Te Whatanui. I got the land back from Te Whatanui, and therefore have a right to it. Te Whatanui had the mana over all the land as far north as Ngatokorua. He had houses and cultivations north of Hokio. The descendants of Whatanui did not claim north of Hokio when Horowhenua was before the Court in 1872 and 1873. The Ngatiraukawa claim included the whole of the Horowhenua Block. The Muaupoko put in a claim for the land I say had been taken by Te Whatanui. Te Paki correctly described the boundary between Pariri and Te Bongo. Ido not agree with him that it was laid down in consequence of a quarrel between them about the Pukaahu eel-pa. I have not heard that reason assigned. I have heard of other women besides Te Bongo and Pariri who have fixed boundaries between their tribes. Ido not know why they did it. I have not heard that Kaewa had any cultivations on this land, but her elders and ancestors had—Te Bangihouhia ma. Te Bangihouhia lived at Waikawa as well as at Horowhenua. He had rights there from his father, Kahoro, of Ngaitiere. He had no rights at Porirua. The lands of Ngaitiere extended from Otaki to Ohau. I never heard that Te Bangihouhia fled from Porirua to Waikawa. I never heard that he fled from Pukehou to Horowhenua. I heard that he killed Hotoke at Pukehou. There were four people with him. Ihaka Bangihouhia was one. I forget the others. Ihaka climbed up a rata-tree to escape Ngatiraukawa. Te Bangihouhia did not come to Horowhenua to escape Ngatiraukawa. Ido not know where Mauruhau cultivated. Ido not know whether Kaewa left any cultivations at Horowhenua to her son Hunia. Ido not suppose she cultivated any land herself. She was a rangatira. The cultivations 1 worked at on the Horowhenua Block belonged to the permanent residents and to me. Hanita Kowhai and I cleared some of the cultivations. He was sent back here by Kaewa to occupy their land. He was supreme chief of Muaupoko in his day. I made use of an eel-pa in Hokio Stream ; it was purchased from Te Whatanui, who had taken the land and stream, with the assistance of Bauparaha and his people. I never heard until this Court that Te Whatanui and Taueki made pace. I heard that Te Whatanui made peace with Te Hakeke and Taiweherua at Karekare. This peace was never disturbed. I never heard that Taueki and Whatanui laid down a boundary between them. I heard of Whatanui's boundary from Tau-o-te-Buru to the hills. It was a boundary between himself and Muaupoko. I heard this at Kupe meeting. I did not hear Hunia say then that Whatanui's boundary should be shifted to Hokio. His object was to remove the mana of the Ngatiraukawa from Horowhenua altogether. I have heard that Te Uamairangi and his people came to Horowhenua. I did not hear that he was attacked. He was invited to come here by Kotuku, and lived at Kotuku's kainga' at the mouth of Hokio. He returned to his own district. He was accompanied by the Ngatiupokoiri. I heard that Kotuku and Te Uamairangi were contemporaries, but I do not know. I suppose Te Uamairangi was accompanied by Ngatiupokoiri because that was his iwi, but I do not know. Pihere and Tawhia killed Tireo and Marama. The two former were of Ngatiapa. The reason Tireo and Marama were killed was an insulting expression used by Marama with reference to Tawhia. They were killed by a war-party. Both were killed by the same war-party. I do not know that Tireo was murdered in his house by Ngatiapa. I have not heard of any

77

G.—2a

whakatauaki referring to the killing of Tireo. Pihere and Tawhia were the chiefs of the war-party. I have not heard that Tireo was killed by Ngarangitopetopea. The Ngatiapa did not take possession of the place where they killed Tireo. It was not an ope tango whenua. I have not heard that Marama was killed by Ngatiraukawa. I do not know whether Tireo was living on his own land when he was killed. 1 assume that it was his from the fact of his living there. Ngatiapa, Bangitane, and Muaupoko were all one people in olden times. Muaupoko are a branch of Ngatiapa ; they all lived at Hotuiti at one time; some of each tribe did. I have not heard that Buatapu and Potangotango were living at Horowhenua when Tireo was killed. It is true that Bangihikaka gave land to Tairatu when he married Maewa. I have no desire to take back the land so given. The descendants of Tairatu are living. I have not heard that Buatapu and Potangotango had ever been to Horowhenua before the occasion on which Tairatu married Buatapu. Te Uira was killed before they came. I do not know why he came. Papaitonga was Ngataitoko's pa. I suppose his children were brought up there. Kawainga, the eldest daughter, went south to Waikanae. She was not given land here. The other two sisters were given land at Horowhenua. That is what I have heard. Te Bangihikaka built the pas at Waipata and Pukeiti. They were not built in the time of Pariri. I cannot support Te Paki if he says they were. None of the pas on the lake were built in Pariri's time. I cannot contradict Te Paki's evidence as to the bird-snaring trees which he said belonged to our ancestors. I do not know anything about them. I have heard of women snaring birds. Pariri may have snared birds herself, or her people may have done it for her. I did not give evidence in 1873. Kawana Hunia did. He did. not say when we were fighting the Ngatiraukawa that Pariri owned this land. Ngatiraukawa claimed the land by conquest. I heard Kemp state his ancestral right to this land; he traced from Kupe down to himself. Ido not remember his stating to the Court that his ancestor Puakiteao and her descendants had occupied the land permanently. If Te Whatanui had been killed, as Te Bangihouhia suggested, the Muaupoko might have been exterminated, or they might not. I have not heard that Taueki said, "Do not kill Whatanui or we shall be exterminated." Taueki and Tawhati were with Te Bangihouhia when he wanted to kill Whatanui; so I have heard. Te Bauparaha divided his lands among the hapus of Ngatiraukawa. Horowhenua fell to Whatanui. Te Whatanui had large cultivations at Kouturoa and other places about Hokio in my time. He had also a small cultivation at Otaewa. He sometimes went to Oturoa to live. His descendants ceased to live at Kouturoa after their houses were burnt. Tamaianewa, brother of Te Whatanui, lived with him at Kouturoa. I did not say in 1873 that Kouturoa was Whatanui's kainga. My father was alive then. I deny absolutely that there ever was any boundary between Whatanui and Taueki. If there had been any such boundary it would have had no effect. Taueki had no power to give away the lands of other people. It was Te Hakeke and Taiweherua who made the peace with Whatanui at Karekare. Kawana Hunia burnt Whatanui's houses because he was attempting to take all the land for himself. I left Horowhenua for Bangitikei about 1860. I did not return to Horowhenua for many years. I was fully occupied in protecting our lands in Bangitikei. I was brought here when an infant as a chief for Muaupoko. I was too young to do anything for them then, but I have acted in their interests since I was grown up. I did not tell Muaupoko in 1886 that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena absolutely. The Court and Mr. McDonald told them so. I did not tell them that Kemp and Warena were trustees. I objected to Kemp's name alone being put in, because enough of my land had been allotted to others. I knew that No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena for themselves alone. If I had not objected it would have gone to Kemp alone, as No. 14 has. Kemp claims No. 14 as his own, although it was set apart for the descendants of Whatanui, whereas this was given to Kemp and Warena. I set apart a portion of No. 11 for Ngatipariri after the award was made to Warena, and sent in a list of names of the persons whose rights I admitted. Kemp has not done either. I put Warena's name in No. 11. Kemp agreed to it. If he had not done so I would have applied for a rehearing of all the subdivisions of Horowhenua. Warena was awarded 105 acres in No. 3. I put Warena into No. 11 because he had an ancestral right to it. I knew if his name was not put in it would all go to Kemp. I told Ngatipariri that we were going to sell the State farm to the Crown, and that we required the money to enable us to carry on our litigation with Kemp. I did not give any of the purchase-money received for the State farm to Ngatipariri. My share of it all went in legal costs and expenses. I have not given the Ngatipariri a statement of accounts showing my receipts and expenses. No. 12 is within the boundary of Pariri. I think the meeting I have spoken of at Kakariki, where my father was asked to sheath his sword, took place in 1869. The resident Muaupoko were all under the mana of Whatanui. That is why they did not object to his leases before Kawana Hunia came. Whatanui took my land south of Hokio without my permission. That is why I determined to have it back. I did not hear that my father kept back the leases from the Court of 1873 at Foxton, or that there was an argument between Buckley and Cash as to whether McDonald should be called upon to produce them. Did not hear that Ihaia Taueki was prevented giving evidence in case he should refer to the leases. I did not tell Te Baraku not to mention the boundary she has given. The Court adjourned till the Ist June.

Levin, Tuesday, Ist June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested.

G.—2a

78

Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Wieihana Hunia's cross-examination by Bawiri Bota continued. Witness : I have known for a long time that Tupatunui was the ancestor from whom I derive a right to this land. Some of the elders of Muaupoko know it also. They know the descendants of Tupatunui who came here and those who remained with Ngatiapa. I remember sitting of Court in Palmerston in 1890. 1 attended that Court. I remember Te Paki giving evidence. I called him as a witness. He gave a genealogy. He may have traced our descent from Kupe through Hikaotaota and Pariri, but I mentioned Tupatunui, and said that he was the ancestor who owned this land. Ido not remember admitting the correctness of the whakapapa given by Te Paki at Court of 1890. I think I gave evidence before Te Paki at the Court of 1890. I claimed from Pariri, but I believe I mentioned Tupatunui. Ido not remember Te Paki saying at the Court of 1890 that Hikaotaota was the take to this land. Ido not remember Te Paki giving two whakapapa from Kupe through Hikaotaota and Te Hukui. Hikaotaota had no right to this land. I have not said that Tokipoto was killed at Hotuiti after the fighting between Bauparaha and Muaupoko; he was killed by the war-party that killed Te Bauparaha's children at Te Wii. That taua went as far north as Bangitikei. I have not heard that Tokipoto was the first of my ancestors killed by Te Bauparaha. The first time he attacked Muaupoko was at Waipata. Te Bangiheheke occupied Papaitonga Pa. After him Ngataitoko and Te Bangihikaka occupied it in turn. I have not been told in which direction the gates of the Papaitonga pa faced, or where the marae of the pa was. I did not hear where Te Bangiheheke died. I have not heard that Te Bangiheheke and Korangawhenua were killed at Otaki by Te Ikawhiri and Te Aokehu. It is not true ; they were descendants of Te Bangiwhakapou, and lived after the time of Te Bangiheheke. I am descended from their brother Ngataiomutu. I can trace Tokai from Hauti. (See cross-examination by A. McDonald on 27th May.) Pupuke was a woman, and married Bangipakinga. Te Hakeke was a descendant of Bangiwhakaturia, father of Bangipakinga; hence his waiata. Te Boha-o-te-Kawau was built by Tairatu and Te Horapoto; they were assisted by Hamua and Ngaitiere because they were manuhiri. Ido not agree with Te Paki that it was a Ngatipariri pa. He has not had the same opportunity of knowing that I have. I have lived at Horowhenua longer than Te Paki; he has wandered about from place to place. I have associated more with the elders of Muaupoko than he has. Te Buatapu and Potangotango did not build Te Boha-o-te-Kawau. Te Buatapu went to the South Island, and was killed at Paterehu by Ngatikuia ma. Te Muretu, of Wairarapa, came to Hokio with a war-party. From there he saw Te Waikiekie and Te Boha-o-te-Kawau Pas, and compared them to a forest at Te Oreore. The place where he stood when he made this comparison was called Te Tapuwae-a-Muretu. When he found that Tairatu's pas were on islands he left without attacking them. I have heard that Waipata, Te Boha-o-te-Kawau, and Waikiekie were the first pas on Horowhenua. Te Koropu is not a kainga; it is a swamp. Te Karapu is a kainga. I have not heard that Buatapu and Potangotango lived at Karapu before Te Boha-o-te-Kawau was built. Ido not know who the chief of Te Karapu was. It belonged to the descendants of Te Bongo, I heard. None of the descendants of Te Bongo have been conspicuous for bravery. I have not heard that Ngatitoa broke peace made at Karekare by killing my ancestor at Papaitonga. The killing of Takare and Paipai took place before peace was made at Karekare, so I heard. My ancestors and elders occupied this land more permanently than those of ihaia Taueki. His elders were new-comers from Manawatu. Mine had rights from Manawatu to Porirua. I cannot name any lands that have been awarded to descendants of Te Biunga in Tamaki district, but I have heard that Puakiteao was set up as the ancestor for lands in that district. Hoani Meihana set up Tireo as the ancestor for Aorangi and other blocks in Manawatu. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Tawhakahiku and Mangere were first attacked in Manawatu. Ido not know what hapus attacked them. I have not heard that they were attacked by Ngatihotu, Ngaitara, and Ngatimamoe. They were killed by Bangiheheke. They came to Wheteriki, near Papaitonga, and saw Aitupaoa in a tree. His wife was at the foot of the tree and they killed her. Aitupaoa took refuge in the pa at Papaitonga, and told his friends of the arrival of Tawhakahiku and Mangere. Te Bangiheheke determined to attack them on the mainland. He did so, and defeated them. I cannot trace descent from Aitupaoa; can from Bangiheheke. My ancestor Tupatunui was killed at Te Ana-a-hou-pukerua. The name Muaupoko originated from the placing Tupatunui's head on a rock. If Te Paki has said that Tupatunui was killed at Muaupoko lagoon that is his version. I am giving the story as it was told to me. Ido not know which Marama it was who was killed with Tireo in Manawatu. Puakiteao and Potangotango came here for the first time after the killing of Tireo ; so I heard. They were descendants of Te Uira. I do not know where Te Uira lived; I never heard. He was killed at Otaewa, on this land. Te Paki lived continuously at Turakina during the lifetime of his first wife. Their children were all born there. I saw Te Peeti and his wife here after 1873. They lived here about a year, and then returned to their kainga in Manawatu. I have not heard that any one objected to their living here. I have not heard that Te Paki was not objected to, because To Paki's wife, Emeri, had rights to the land. I have not heard that Te Aweawe adjusted the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. I heard that Te Peeti did. He only came once in connection with the boundary. Aperahama Bautahi came with him. Poroutawhao, the boundary, was fixed disadvantageously to Muaupoko. Ngatitoa first attacked Muaupoko at Waipata and Te Boha-o-te-Kawau. They attacked Bangitane and Ngatiapa at Hotuiti. Te Marake, Tioi, and others of Ngatiapa were killed there. Te Kahu, of Ngatiapa, also killed there. They were Bangitane as well as Ngatiapa. Horomona Paro is a descendant of one of the survivors. I have not heard that Ngamahina was taken prisoner at Whirokino, but it may be so. I said at Court of 1890 that I claimed this land from Pariri. I mentioned Tupatunui. I said that I did not know who occupied this land before Pariri. Ngarangiwhakaotia's rights were at Otaki.

79

a.— 2a

I have not heard that he had rights here. He was a Ngatimoewaka. Te Bangihouhia had rights to land north of Otaki through his father, Kahoro. He married a descendant of Pariri, and occupied Waipata. I have not heard origin of the hapu name —Ngaiteao; I think it is a new name. I have seen Ani Kanara Tihore and her husband living on this land; they cultivated at Te Kawiu and Te Hopuhopu. I have heard that Hoani Meihana lived here at Waipata with Te Bangihouhia, but I have not heard that he had cultivations here. Ido not know how he lived. I cannot remember seeing Te Peeti at Te Kupe meetings, although I have heard the hakas composed about him. I was not here when Kemp and Hunia built Pipiriki Pa. I came backwards and forwards from Bangitikei with food for the builders. I know of a waiata by Te Hakeke; it referred to the Muaupoko who went to the South Island. Ido not remember when Bangitane, Muaupoko, and Ngatiapa first became allies. Hakeke reconciled Bangitane and Muaupoko when Kawana was born. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I remember the Court of 1873, when Horowhenua was heard. Three principal tribes attended the Court and two smaller tribes. Ngatikahungunu, Ngatiapa, and Wanganui were the tribes who assisted the Muaupoko and Bangitane. The Bangitane are descendants of Puakiteao. Some of them are Ngatipariri —the Hamua section. The Hamua residing east of the range who were put into the title to Horowhenua returned their share of the land to the Hamua section of Muaupoko residing at Horowhenua. Horowhenua was not awarded to the descendants of the ancestors set up by Kemp in 1873. Our object now is to ascertain who are entitled by occupation as well as ancestry. My ancestors did not give any land to Potangotango. It was given to Tairatu and Te Horapoto because Maewa married Tairatu. The gift was confined to the land taken from Ngamaihi's people. The land east of the boundary belonged to the descendants of Te Bongo. Kerehi Tomo is a descendant of Te Bongo, and has rights by occupation, but I recovered the land from Te Whatanui. I have heard of the cultivations mentioned by Paranihia Biwai. Her parents had rights to the land of Te Bongo. I heard Bihipeti Nireaha's evidence as to her cultivations. It is true. Paranihia Biwai and Bihipeti Nireaha both left this land after they married. Their near relatives continued to live on the land. Mr. Knocks was not present. He had previously informed the Court that he did not intend to cross-examine any more of the witnesses called by the present party. Mr. J. M. Fraser was detained in Auckland by boisterous weather. Sir W. Buller did not wish to cross-examine the witness, and asked that Mr. Fraser's crossexamination might stand over until he arrived. The Court agreed, and called upon Mr. McDonald to proceed with his next witness. Mr. McDonald called Himiona Kowhai. Himiona Kowhai on former oath. Witness: I was born at Horowhenua, and have lived here all my life. Pariri had four children —Hineitohua, Tui, Kopani, and Tawhaowhao. I can trace my descent from Kopani— Pariri = Hukui Kopani = Te Kapo __ I II II Tairatu = Maewa Taniwha = Whareao Wairaka Wera . ! II 111 Tapunga Parikautuku = Puau Kotuku Ku = Paeahi Taiweherua | (No issue) Wi Perahama Te Pitau = Minaora (of Ngatiapa) Komakorau m Taiata Te Pakehiwi — Tini (No issue) | | (No issue) Inia Tamaraki Iritana = Hanita Kowhai (No issue) | Wiki Hanita Himiona Kowhai Toheriri, Takerei, and Paipai were the children of Taniwha and Whareao; they were killed at Papaitonga. Hineitohua Rangihikaka Kiore Horapoto I I Takiari - Te Rau I Hanita Kowhai = Iritana I Wiki Hanita Himiona Kowhai I have four lines from Puakiteao, but I cannot give them all. After Takiari died Te Bau married Tamati Maunu and had Mii Maunu, Hariata Tinotahi, and Biwai te Amo. Te Bongopatahi and Kawainga were sisters of Pariri. Ido not know what became of Kawainga. I have heard that Te Bongo remained here. Her descendants are here. Kawainga's descendants are also here now. Pariri remained here; her descendants are living here. Te Bongopatahi and Pariri lived together here. Pariri had one side and Bongo the other side of the land where the township is now. There was a boundary between Te Bongo and Pariri. Pariri's boundary extended from the range to the sea. Te Bongo's ended on the other side of the lake (west side). The land between Te Bongo and the sea is mine. I can describe the boundary between Te Bongo and

G.—2a

80

Pariri; it ran direct from the sea to the mountains; it was correctly given by Te Paki in his evidence before this Court. There was a boundary between my elders and Te Bongo, beginning at Te Betimatangi, near Te Beti; thence to Te Beti to seaward side of Taingaehe bush; thence seaward of Moutere hill; thence seaward side of Whangaingai and on to Ngatihuia boundary. I do not know where it went before the Ngatihuia boundary was fixed. Hoani Puihi knows, because he assisted in locating it. I heard that it was first laid down in Te Bongo's time. The land between this boundary and the sea belonged to Ngatikokopu ma. Wirihana explained how Bangihikaka had conquered the land from Ngatikokopu and other hapus, and when Tairatu married Maewa it was given to him. This is how Tairatu and Horapoto got their right. They were inseparable, and what belonged to one belonged to the other. I heard this from my father and my mother. My father was an influential chief of Muaupoko in his time. The whole of the Hokio Stream is within the boundary of the land given to Tairatu on his marriage with Maewa. The following is a description of the eel-pas on Hokio Stream : (1.) Baumatangi belongs to the descendants of Te Whatanui. It was mine originally. I heard that Taueki gave it to Whatanui. It was given to Taueki because my ancestors, Tairatu and Horapoto, ducked Potangotango in it, and then gave it to him as compensation. This is the only eel-pa Potangotango or his descendants had in the Hokio Stream. (2.) Tarawhakamate belongs to Makere te Bou now. Ido not know how she became possessed of it, but she is a descendant of Pariri, not of Tairatu or Te Horapoto. (3.) Tonganui is Noa te Whata's now; he bought it from Te Whatanui. At one time the land and the people were under the mana of Whatanui. (4.) Karipo is used by Hopa te Piki now. I do not know how he got his right to it. None of these pas were worked in Whatanui's time excepting Tonganui and Pukaahu. My father worked them; he bought them both from Te Whatanui. Muaupoko did not resume working the others until after 1873. (5.) Te Aramianga is worked now by Karaitiana and a number of others. (6.) Te Maire is worked by the same persons. (7.) Pukaahu-a-tu is worked by Te Kerehi and the descendants of Te Wirihana Tarewa. (8.) Pukaahu: I have always worked this eel-pa. (9.) Tuturi: I have seen many persons working at this pa. I first saw Himiona Taiweherua, Hori Matakatea, and Taueki working there. (10.) Te Buataniwha : I and my teina work there now : I mean Hariata's children. (11.) Tawa was mine. I was deprived of it in Whatanui's time. Makere works there now. I heard it belonged to Tapunga, Kotuku, and others. (12.) Te Bere-a-te-whioi: I and my teina work this pa. (13.) Taheke: Bawiri te Hutukawa used to work that pa. Te Whatanui's descendants use it now. (14.) Tauanui : Makere and others use. (15.) Pahokino: Bakuraku, Makere's first husband, worked there. (16.) Te Uku :I do not know who worked it. (17.) Te Pokaka is mine ;we work it now. (18.) Bingawhati: Makere works it. (19.) Te Houhou : I only saw it worked once, and that was by Te Bewiri Whiumairangi. (20.) Tapuikumikumi: Saw it worked once, by Bihari Tarakihi. (21.) Tirotirowhetu : Worked recently by Hori te Pa. (22.) Te Pa-a-kotuku : Has not been worked since Kotuku's time. (23.) Tupokiwai: Worked by Hopa te Piki. (24.) Tareremango is mine. Wi Perahama used to work there. (25.) Te Moutere : I have not seen any one working there. Ido not know apa called Whakahinga in Hokio Stream. I have not heard of a pa called Parahake in Hokio. I know of no occupation of Puakiteao here. I have heard that she lived at Tamaki. I have not heard that Te Biunga lived here until lately. First heard it when the Boyal Commission sat. If I knew of any right of Puakiteao's I would speak of it, because I have more lines from her than any of the Muaupoko. Taniwha had a mark on this land. He was brother of Maewa. He had a fighting-pa outside of Waimango, between Mahoenui and Bakauhamama. I cannot say that the pa can be identified now. My elders told me of it. I and a young man picked up an axe there lately. The pa was on open ground. My elders informed me that it was known as Te Pa-o-Taniwha. Toheriri was captured at Papaitonga, taken to Kapiti, and killed. I cannot say whether Takare and Paipai were killed at the same time. I claim to. be the nearest surviving relative of Toheriri, Takare, and Paipai. My father was taken prisoner by Ngatituwharetoa, or Upper Wanganuis, in his youth. He and Ihaia Taueki were captured together. He came back when a young man. His mana was not affected by his capture. He became the principal man of the Muaupoko. Ido not know my age. I did not see Wirihana Hunia here when he was young. He is older than I am. Ido not remember where I first saw him. I think Bihipeti Tamaki is older than I am. Ido not remember seeing her here. She must have gone away when I was very young. I heard my father speaking of the leases of this land. He had the lease of the land north of Hokio in his possession. He left it with my mother, and she gave it to Kawana Hunia. It was before 1868 that I was at school at Otaki for four years. I was still at school in 1868. My father was killed long before 1873. He and my mother instructed me in the history of this land. I never saw the lease that was in my father's possession. My mother told me that his name was in the lease. I heard that he signed it in respect of the land that was given to Tairatu and his brother. The Court adjourned till the 2nd instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 2nd June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be benefioially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Himiona Kowhai's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : Hanita Kowhai drew rent under the lease. There were other lessees, including Te Whatanui. Some of the lessees drew £11, others drew £5 each. I saw two years' rent paid.

81

G.—2 a

Pioka and Iritana drew £5 each. Pioka brought me up. Hanita Kowhai received his share, of the rent from Hector McDonald direct. He divided or shared his £11 with his sisters— Mii Waikohu, alias Maunu, and Hariata Tinotahi. My father gave me part of his share of the rent. I gave Hare Eakena, son of Wiki Pua, £2 out of the rent one year. I believe Kawana Hunia gave the lease to Muaupoko, but Ido not know where it is now. I do not know when the term of the lease expired. Ido not know whether my mother drew any rent after my father's death. I know of a lease granted by Kemp after Court of 1873. It was drawn by Sir Walter Buller. The rent under that lease was divided among the four hapus—Ngaiteao, Ngaitamarangi, Ngatipariri, and Ngatihine equally—£so to each. It was at my instance that Ngatipariri participated. I drew the Ngatipariri share of the rent. I heard that Te Whatanui leased the land south of Hokio Stream to Hector McDonald. My father participated in that lease with Whatanui. He was the only Muaupoko who did. I never saw any money from that lease. I heard from my mother that my father participated in the rent. My ancestors had fighting-pas on No. 11. Te Eoha-o-te-Kawau was a fighting-pa of Tairatu and Te Horapoto. Waikiekie: Fightingpa belonging to same people. These pas are on artificial islands about a chain apart. Waipata and Pukeiti belonged to Te Eangihikaka. They are also on artificial islands on the lake, about 10 chains apart. I have heard that all these pas were built about the same period. Ido not know of any other pas on Block 11 belonging to my ancestors. Te Namuiti: Fighting-pa of descendants of Te Eongo ; cannot name the persons who occupied it. Te Eae-o-te-karaka was apa on the mainland; it belonged to all Muaupoko. I cannot say when it was built. I heard that the four pas on the lake were built for purpose of defence against Ngatiapa, who it was considered might seek revenge for the defeat of Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura by Te Eangihikaka. I have heard that these hapus were connected with Ngatiapa, but I cannot trace the connection. Some of the Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura escaped. Their descendants are here now. Ani Kanara te Eaorao and Makere te Eou are two of them. There are others, but Ido not know them. I was at Court in 1890 when No. 3 was divided. Did not hear Makere or Major Kemp give their whakapapas at that Court. I know kaingas of my ancestors and elders on No. 11. Otaewa : A kainga and cultivation; it belonged to Te Eangihikaka. Eewiri and Hanita cultivated there. Ido so now. Te Hou , A kainga and cultivation of Wi Perahama. His peach and apple orchard is there, also a totara-tree which I heard he planted. I am his nearest of kin. He died before 1873. Wahinekairakau : A cultivation. It was Takiari's ; afterwards came to my father. The descendants of Turikatuku are working there now. Te Waikoukou: A kainga and cultivation of my father's. It came to him from his ancestors. Te Hukui was buried there. My father had an eel-pond just below Hukui's grave. Hapaitakeke: A cultivation just beyond Waikoukou. Tamati Maunu and Hetariki cultivated there. Te Pua-te-ngao : A cultivation of my father's, formerly used by Te Eangihikaka. My father's potato-pit there is still open. Whatiwhatiwahine: A cultivation of my father's; formerly belonged to Eangihikaka. Kouturoa : A kainga and cultivation. Te Whatanui and Tamati Maunu lived there. It originally belonged to the descendants of Pariri—Te Eangihikaka and others. Tatearero : A cultivation. I saw Hetariki and Eawiri te Hutukawa working there. Tii: A cultivation. I saw Mii Maunu and Eawiri te Hutukawa cultivating there. Titirangi: A cultivation of Te Whatanui's. Te Makomako : A cultivation of Tamati Maunu and Hanita Kowhai. Pararaurekau: A cultivation of Hanita Kowhai; it is in the township block. His peach-trees and karaka-trees are still growing there. Tahua : A cultivation. Mii Maunu and Eawiri worked there. Te Umu-tawa-a-pariri: On boundary. All the places I have mentioned are on the Pariri side of the boundary. Takapukaiparoro: A cultivation; it was worked by my ancestors. Te Paki and I worked there. Paenoa: A cultivation of the descendants of Pariri. I and Ihaka te Eangihouhia have worked there. These cultivations are also on Pariri side. Okauia :An eel-pond of my father's. Tiu-a-te-kaahunui :An eel-swamp of my ancestors. Tiu-a-te-kaahuiti: Also an eel-swamp. These two are divided by a small ridge; they are in No. 9. Taheremaro :An eel-swamp of my ancestors; now mine; also in No. 9. Te Waimango: An eel-pond; dried up now. It belonged to my ancestors. Just below Te Pa-o-Taniwha. Otawhaowhao: An eel-lake. It was Te Eangihikaka's; is mine now. Puketoa: An eel-swamp. It belonged to my ancestors. I have inherited it from them. Te Eakauhamama : An eel-lake belonging to my ancestors. These are all I know of or have heard of. I claim Waiwiri by right from my ancestors, but Ido not know the names of the cultivations or workings there. My ancestors there were Takare, Toheriri and Paipai. The Ngatiraukawa worked these eel-swamps in their time. Te Whatanui had the mana over the whole of Horowhenua Block and over the people. Te Ngaraukaiwaka is a kairau belonging to Takiari; now mine. Te Puau-o-tokiwhati: A kairau of my ancestors down to my father and me. Tokiwhati is an eel-pa in the bush. I forgot to mention it before. My father worked it. Te Mamaku : A kairau of my ancestors ; belongs to myself and some of the other descendants of Pariri. Kari-a-taki: A kairau of the descendants of Pariri. Arowhata: An eel-pa. Noa te Whata used to work it. Ngapumata : A kairau of my ancestors, down to myself. I and my teina work there. Te Pouaruhe : A kairau of my ancestors, down to myself. Te Karamu: A kairau of my ancestors and elders. All these places are on the Pariri side of boundary. Te Kotuku : A fern-root ground in No. 9; belonged to my ancestors and elders. I have dug fern-root there. Hemoutikitiki: Fern-root ground of my ancestors and elders. Upokopaoa: Fern-root ground ; my ancestors dug fern-root there. Te Pu-a-te-ngao : Fern-root ground ; used by my ancestors and parents. Takapukaiparoro : Fern-root place ; used by my ancestors. Mahoenui: Fern-root place; used by my ancestors. These are all the fern-root places I have heard of on Pariri's side. There is a karaka-grove at Mahoenui; used by my ancestors. Takapukaiparoro : Karaka-grove; used by my ancestors, elders, and self. Waitu: A karaka-grove in No. 9 ; belonged to my ancestors. Otaewa : A karaka-grove of my ancestors. I gather the berries there now. Makomako : A karaka-grove; used by my ancestors and elders. There is a karakagrove between Pararaurekau and Makomako. It belonged to my ancestors ; now mine. Karaka-

11— G. 2a.

&.—2a

82

grove between Tahua and Makomako called Toipikiaitawhaki; used by my ancestors and elders down to myself; not much used now. Te Bangihikaka planted this grove. I have not heard of any bird-snaring trees on No. 11. Hinau-berries were collected at Otahinga, Waihau, Makomako, Tauratukutuku, by my ancestors and elders. I have not heard of any rat-tracks on this land. There was a kahika-tree named Pikiwahine on this block, but I do not know where it grew. In Te Whatanui's time Muaupoko lived under his mana. I have never heard that Te Whatanui and Taueki made peace. I heard from the elders that Muaupoko and Whatanui made some arrangement about the land south of Hokio. Mr. McDonald produced a manuscript book containing information relating to this block (pages A, B, C, D, E). Witness : I recognise the writing; it is Hetariki's. The book has been in my mother's possession ever since Hanita died. I heard from my mother that the land south of the boundary, described in the book, was to be sold by Te Whatanui and Muaupoko. I have not heard that it was sold, or that Muaupoko received any money for it. My father was, I suppose, one of those who went with Whatanui to fix the boundary. Only Ngatipariri had rights to the cultivations and eel-swamps I have named on the Pariri side of the boundary ; no other hapu had any right to them. The persons who had rights with me are Hariata Tinotahi and her children, Mereana Matao and her family, Ngataahi and her family, the Tikara family, Paki te Hunga, Ihaka Bangihouhia, Wirihana Hunia. I do not admit Karaitiana Tarawahi, Biria Heremaia, Bahira, Mata Huikirangi, Buihi Wuunu, or Makere. I admit Tapita Himiona's rights to Pariri lands. I never saw Himiona te Hopu working on Pariri lands. I admit the rights of Biwai te Amo, Mii Maunu, Bihipeti Tamaki. I admit the rights of all the descendants of Pariri who are on the land —those who have rights by occupation. There are cultivations and pa tunas on the seaward side of Te Bongo's boundary, north of Hokio, which show my rights by occupation. Otawhaki is an eel-swamp; it belonged to Tairatu and Horapoto, and has now come to me. Ohourangi: An eel-swamp, belonging to same ancestors; is now mine. Te Waiewe: An eel-swamp; owned by same people. Batahi: An eel-swamp; belonging to same ancestors. Owhita: An eel-pa; belonged to same ancestors. Ngakawau : An eel-pa; belonged to same ancestors. Ngararanui: An eel-swamp; owned by same ancestors. Pakauhokio: An eel-swamp, near the Ngatihuia boundary. All these swamps are within the portions I claim from gift to Tairatu. All Muaupoko catch eels in them. They have a right to do so because they are descendants of the dispossessed hapus. I did not see them fishing at the swamps when Whatanui was in possession of the land. Porotutakirua was a cultivation near Hokio Stream; it belonged to my ancestors. It has not been worked in my time. It was a fishing kainga also. Tirotirowhetu: A cultivation of my ancestors—Tairatu and others. I have not worked there. Piri-a-tawa: A cultivation; same ancestors cultivated there. lam growing crops there now. There was another cultivation a little above Te Buataniwha. It was worked by the same ancestors. I cannot remember any others. I do not know of any fernroot grounds. I have some cultivations on Te Bongo's land. My ancestor Pioka is my right there. Te Rongopatahi I Tapitaonga Tangatakau I Ihumananawa = Matiti I Pioka (No issue) Waimaire: A kairau of Pioka's. Pioka had a cultivation on the other side of Te Kawiu landing. Te Hopuhopu: A cultivation of Pioka. His peach-trees are growing there now. I worked there with Pioka, and have continued to work there since his death. Pioka had a weka-snaring place there. Pioka gave Te Baorao some land at Te Hopuhopu. They worked there together. Ido not know why the gift was made, but I heard of it from Pioka himself. Matakunui: A cultivation of Pioka's. Landing-place there is called Te Bongo Arapaoa. Pioka had a kairau between Te Bongo Arapaoa and Te Kawiu. Te Puapua : A cultivation of Pioka's ; his apple-trees are growing there now. Mairua: A cultivation of Pioka's. I cultivated there up to last year. Pioka had an eel-pa called Te Haihuka on a stream of that name. Tahunangarara :An eel-pa, worked by Pioka. Te Mangaroa : Eel-pa, worked by Pioka. Pioka was the only person who worked at these places. Part of Mairua adjoining Pioka's mahinga was given by him to Makere. He also gave a small cultivation to Ihaia. Te Ope-a-te-wai, a mahinga at Te Mairua, was given by Pioka to Te Baorao. I have worked at Mairua since Pioka's death and since my marriage. Ido not know what Muaupoko considered was my right to work there, but I did so. Muaupoko worked there also. No one objected to my working there. The boundaries of the cultivations are still adhered to. Formerly they were covered with flax. There are two karaka-groves at Mairua ; they both belonged to Pioka, and he collected the berries from them. I consider that Kawana Hunia was instrumental in recovering this land from Te Whatanui in 1873. The people continued to live on the land with Whatanui until he was dispossessed of the land by the Court and the action taken by Kawana Hunia. The action taken by Hunia was calling meetings, ordering Muaupoko to kill McDonald's cattle, and burning the houses of Ngatiraukawa. The killing of cattle was continued over a long period. Whatanui the younger and the Muaupoko lived together amicably upon the country this side of Mahoenui in 1860. Ido not know of any one but Kawana Hunia attempting to disturb the occupation of Te Whatanui. Wi Perahama had a cultivation on Te Bongo's side. Ido not know what his rights were. It was in Te Whatanui's time that Wi Perahama worked there. Ido not know that he was a descendant of Te Bongo. In my opinion the people gave No. 11 to Kemp and Hunia in 1886 to divide among the persons they considered were entitled to it. It was for them to apply to the Court to do this. If they had sold the land I should have said, " Katahi nga tangata

83

G.—2a

kohuru ko raua." It has been owing to their action that the law has had to be invoked, and opened the doors to all the world to come in. I was at the Court in Palmerston in 1890. I did not hear Wirihana Hunia cross-examined by Mr. Baker at that Court. [Vol. 13, pages 262 and 263.] Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I did not hear the evidence given by Te Paki in opening his case. I heard part of Te Wirihana's evidence. Te Paki and Wirihana are both older than I am. That portion of Wirihana's evidence which I heard I agree with. I say that Taniwha married Whareao. I cannot trace descent of latter. If Te Paki said Taniwha married Te Biunga I do not know which Taniwha he meant, or where he came from. I have said that I claimed from Tupatunui. I cannot trace from him to Pariri. I claim from Pariri. Ido not know when I first learnt that Pariri was my take to this land. I did not set up a case from Pariri in 1890. None of Muaupoko set up a case. I did not hear Wirihana say at that Court that there was no land for Ngatipariri, that it had all gone to Warena. Ido not remember a meeting of Muaupoko under Fitzherbert's office in 1890. I did not hear any Ngatipariri say that Muaupoko had offered Warena 1,000 acres at that meeting. If Wirihana says that Toheriri was killed at Ohau that is his version. I heard from my elders that he was taken to Kapiti and killed there. I was at school at Otaki in 1868. A Court sat there in that year. Our teacher was a pakeha. I forget his name. It is not a fact that I went to Otaki to school in 1863 and left in 1864. I was a boy when my father told me about the lease he had in his possession. I suppose he gave me information about it because he thought it would be useful to me when I grew up. My mother had it in her custody after my father's death ; she gave it to Kawana Hunia. The lease was signed by Te Whatanui, my father, and some others of Muaupoko. Hanita did not tell me that Muaupoko objected to Te Whatanui participating in the lease because he had no right to the land. I did not object to Kawana Hunia interfering with the lease given by my father and Whatanui. It was the Hamua and Ngatipariri under Bangihikaka who conquered Ngamaihi's hapus. I cannot say whether the whole of Muaupoko took part. I do not know who owned the land beyond the Ngatihuia boundary. I have not heard that Ngatiapa conquered Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura. Bangihikaka, Tairatu, and Horapoto were contemporaries. The two latter built Te Boha-o-te-Kawau and Waikiekie. Ido not know where Pariri and Te Bongo's pas were. My father did not tell me that Pariri had bird-snaring trees on this land. Ido not know why Pariri and Te Bongo laid down a boundary between them. Hanita did not tell me that it was on account of a dispute over an eel-pa. Ido not know the southern limit of Pariri's land, or the northern boundary of Te Bongo's. I was not told. I heard of Tupatunui when the kaumatuas were alive. I do not know the boundaries of his lands. Ido not know that Tairatu and Horapoto got their rights to this land from their parents —Buatapu and Potangotango. Te Uira was killed at Otaewa. I do not know why he was killed. The Court adjourned till the 3rd June.

Levin, Thursday, 3bd June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case— continued. Himiona Kowhai's cross-examination by Bawiri Bota continued. Witness: I have not said that the eel-weirs on Hokio belonged to Ngatipariri; they all belonged to Tairatu and Horapoto after the gift I have spoken of. I cannot say who of the descendants of Te Bongo owned them before the gift. I do not know who of the descendants of Te Bongo use the eel-weirs in the Hokio Stream now. All the persons who use those eel-weirs are descendants of Te Buatapu and Potangotango, but they do not derive their right to do so from those ancestors. I have already explained that the right came from Tairatu and Te Horapoto. My grandfather, Komakorau, was a descendant of Buatapu, and also of Pariri. Tamati Maunu had no eel-pas in Hokio Stream. Hariata Tinotahi had a right to use the eel-pas in Hokio from Tairatu. I do not know whether the descendants of Te Bongo had any right to use the eel-pas after the gift; they never belonged to Te Bongo. I repeat that when this land was awarded to Kemp and Hunia in 1886 I considered they held it for the persons who occupied it, and not for themselves alone. I did not hear any one else say at that time that they held the same view. Ido not remember saying in this Court on the 14th March last, in reply to Sir Walter Buller, that I did not know that Warena's name was put in No. 11 with Kemp's. If Te Paki had said that the land was not given to Tairatu on his marriage with Maewa he was wrong; he does not know. The boundary between Te Bongo and Ngamaihi's hapus had been laid down previous to the time that Hoani Puihi and others went over it. Ido not know who laid it down originally. It was not Te Bangihikaka and Ngatikokopu ma. Bangihikaka conquered them. Wirihana Hunia and I are together as regards our claims from Pariri, but I have other rights in addition to those derived from Pariri. I do not know what tribes first occupied this land. I heard that Hamua assisted Te Bangihikaka to conquer Ngamaihi's hapus. I cannot give names of individuals who took part. I have only heard of our conquest of Ngamaihi's hapus. I have not heard that they were conquered by Te Pewa-a-rangi, Taiata, and Tairatu. I cannot say how Whatanui obtained his mana over this land and the people. I have not heard that it was owing to the making of peace by Te Whatanui and Taueki that Muaupoko lived in security at Horowhenua. The only peace I know of was made at Kare-

84

G.—2a

kare between Whatanui and my ancestor Taiweherua. I heard that Taueki gave Te Baumatangi eel-pa to Te Whatanui ; none of the others. Hanita purchased an eel-pa from Te Whatanui because all the eel-pas were under his mana. No Muaupoko used them in Te Whatanui's day. I do not know who gave Te Whatanui the mana over the land and the people. Te Wirihana and the kaumatuas may know. The whole of the occupied portions of Horowhenua were under Te Whatanui's mana. I know this because he leased the southern portion of the land himself, and was the principal lessee of the northern portion. Hanita and other Muaupoko joined him in the lease of northern portion. Kawana Hunia may have denied in the Court of 1873 that Whatanui had any mana over this land. Yesterday was the first time the book containing the arrangement between Whatanui and Muaupoko has been produced in Court. I have not heard that the land Te Whatanui and Muaupoko agreed to sell south of Mahoenui was sold shortly after the arrangement. [Lease dated 1867, from Whatanui and Muaupoko to Hector McDonald, read to witness: Hanita's name not in lease.] That may not be the lease that was in my father's possession. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I have heard witnesses say in this Court that Tupatunui was killed at Te Ana-a-hau. I have not heard Te Paki say that he was killed at Muaupoko lake. I think Wirihana would be more likely to know where he was killed than Te Paki. I heard that Te Bangihikaka died at Buamahanga, in Wairarapa. I heard that he was bewitched. He went to his relatives there, but this was his permanent kainga. I have heard of Tireo, and that his lands were at Manawatu and Tamaki. I heard that Hoani Meihana and others established rights to Manawatu and Tamaki lands from Tireo and Puakiteao. I have heard of Te Biunga, and that her lands were at Tamaki. I cannot name any of her descendants who have been admitted to Tamaki lands. Buatapu lived at Horowhenua, and died in the South Island. I have heard that Potangotango lived at Horowhenua. Ido not know why Buatapu and Potangotango lived here, or why Tireo and Te Biunga remained at Tamaki and Manawatu. If Wirihana says they were driven here by Ngatiapa I cannot contradict him. Ido not know whether Te Paki was right in saying that Te Biunga's land extended from Papaitonga southward. I cannot say who of Muaupoko were first killed by Te Bauparaha. Pioka was a tangata of Te Whatanui's. So were all of the Muaupoko. They all had to do Te Whatanui's bidding. I have heard that Hikaotaota married Ngataitoko. The latter had rights to this land; Hikaotaota had not. Te Hukui had a right to Horowhenua. She was a descendant of Bangiheheke, who defeated Mangere and Tawhakahiku at Te Beporua. So far as I know, Te Paki was wrong in saying that Hikaotaota had takes to Horowhenua. I have never disputed the rights of Hikaotaota in any previous Court. Bangiheheke and Aitupaoa killed Mangere and Tawhakahiku, I have heard. I do not know Bangiheheke's hapu name. I can trace my descent from him. lam not a descendant of Aitupaoa. Ido not know what tribe he belonged to. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: I do not know where Whareao came from. Do not know how many children she had. Heard she was a descendant of Hamua. I do not know where Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were born. My mother told me that Taniwha was the husband of Whareao. I have not heard whether Whareao had a second husband. I do not know which Taniwha married Te Biunga, or where he came from. I do not know where either Whareao or Taniwha died. Te Nuinga-o-Muaupoko cultivated at Te Kawiu and Te Watutua. I saw Tamati Maunu working at Kouturoa in Whatanui's time. Since 1873 all Pariri have worked there. I know Paenoa. All Ngatipariri have worked there with me. Te Waikoukou was my father's cultivation. The descendants of Turikatuku are working there now. It was Kawana Hunia who recovered our land from Te Whatanui. Our object now is to exclude all those who have no right by ancestry or occupation. We have never attempted to interfere with Makere or the other descendants of the defeated hapus; they have intermarried with the hapus who own the land. lam not prepared to say now whether all the persons entitled should share equally in this land, because the Muaupoko case comes after mine. Mata Huikirangi is a descendant of Pariri. The reason I cannot say anything about her takes is that she has a separate case. I saw Bihipeti Tamaki's brother living here. He died here. Mr. Fraser : No questions. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness: My mother and Pioka told me what I know about this land. Wirihana Hunia has not told me anything, nor has anybody else. Pioka told me his cultivations and the portions he gave away, also about Mairua. That is all he told me. Pioka did not tell me that the people and the land had been under the mana of Te Whatanui. My father, Hanita Kowhai, told me that. He did not say that he was a servant of Whatanui. The Muaupoko were afraid to go to Hokio. They were afraid of Whatanui and Bauparaha. Ido not know why they were afraid. Wirihana might know. He has not told me. I know that Muaupoko were under the mana of Whatanui, because they did not go to Hokio. My father told me they did not fish in Hokio. He said that the land was under the mana of Whatanui. He told me that Te Whatanui had the mana over Kouturoa, Paenoa, Tatearero, Titirangi, Te Watutua. Te Whatanui worked at these places-, so my father and mother told me. Ido not remember any one else telling me anything. Apart from what Pioka, my father, and my mother told me, I have gained by observation the rest that I have told the Court. I heard the whakapapas I have given from my mother—the Kopani side. The portion through Bangihikaka I got from Wirihana Hunia. My mother is present. Wirihana Hunia instructed me in the whakapapa last year. There was no Court sitting. Ido not know why Wirihana gave me the instruction. I think it was after the Boyal Commission sat. My mother taught me the Kopani line long before the Commission sat, I have heard my mother speaking of the Muaupoko being under the mana of

85

G.—2a

Whatanm. Wirihana has not told me so. I have not given evidence about Horowhenua at any former sitting of the Native Land Court. Kawana Hunia took Muaupoko from Whatanui's mana. He first told Muaupoko to kill McDonald's cattle. I do not know the year. The cattle-killing commenced before I went to school at Otaki. There were many killings. I assisted to kill some. In 1873 Te Whatanui's mana was entirely removed by Kawana Hunia taking the land before the Native Land Court. Ido not know that any prosecution followed the killing of the cattle. Ido not know how many cattle were killed before I went to school. I heard of it from my father, to whom Hunia wrote instructing Muaupoko to kill the cattle. It was the taking of the land into the Court that completely removed the mana of Whatanui. It was Kawana who took it into Court. I heard that it was his claim. Te Wirihana told me a long time ago—before 1886—that Kawana took the land into the Court. I never heard that Ngatiraukawa sent in the claim, and that Kemp and Muaupoko were counter-claimants. I heard from Te Wirihana that Kawana Hunia performed important services for Muaupoko before 1873. I attended the Court of 1873 at Foxton. I did not hear the case opened. I did not go into the Courthouse. I heard that Kemp gave evidence on behalf of Muaupoko, but I was not in the Courthouse. I did not hear that he removed the mana of Whatanui. He was away fighting Titokowaru before 1873. I did not hear that Kemp was working for Muaupoko before 1873. I was in Palmerston when Court sat there in 1886. I did not give evidence. I was in Court when No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Hunia. I understood they were to divide it among those they knew were ahika. I thought then that if they kept the land they would be tangata hohuru. I will not say they were kaitiaki. They were to hold it for the purpose of dividing it among those they considered entitled. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, questions 272 to 280, read.] I remember giving that evidence. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, questions 282 to 285, read.] I said that, but it was given to them to divide among the people. I did not tell the Commission that because some were supporting Kemp and others Warena. I told the Commission all that I thought necessary at the time. I remember giving evidence before the Supreme Court in Wanganui. I was called on behalf of Warena by Mr. Barnicoat. I remember being cross-examined by Mr. Edwards. [Supreme Court case, page 36: Q. "Did you understand you were giving up all this to Warena and Kemp," &c. A. "Yes, we got our division," &c] 1 remember saying that. [Q. " Then, you gave up your father's bones," &c. A. "Yes; they could do what they liked."] I remember saying that. I have explained what I meant by it. [Q. "In 1886, then, it would be right if Kemp and Hunia had turned you all off." A. " That depends on what they thought about it," &c. "It had been deliberately given to them." Q. "When was it deliberately given to them." A. "At Palmerston, at the subdivision; it was arranged outside."] I will admit I said that, but Ido not remember saying that it was arranged outside. When I said we got our division I referred to the 105 acres each in No. 3. Kemp got the township and the 800 acres. Warena was also put in No. 3. Ido not think the evidence I gave in the Supreme Court in 1894 conflicts with what I have said now. I heard at time of Supreme Court in Wanganui that Warena had sold 1,500 acres of No. 11 to the Government for a State farm. I did not hear Warena say so in Court. I forget when I first heard it. I know it now. and that the purchase-money was £6,000. I know that the people did not participate in the purchase-money. It was a mahi kohuru hi te tikanga Maori. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, questions 298 to 301, read.] I remember giving those replies. They are not inconsistent with what I have said now. Both Kemp and Warena were mahi kohuru. Kemp said he was caretaker, but he did not return the land. I did not hear Mr. J. M. Praser say that he put into the Court of 1890 a declaration of trust by Kemp. I was in Palmerston when the Court sat there in 1890. I heard Mr. Baker speak there. [Vol. 13 : Mr. Baker's remarks re trust read to witness.] I still say that Kemp had no intention of returning the land to the people, or he would have done so. The deed of trust referred to by Mr. Fraser was only waste paper. lam not aware that the Supreme Court, after hearing my evidence, said that Warena and Kemp held No. 11 in trust. I heard that the case went to the Appeal Court. Ido not know what the decision of that Court was. I did not know that the land was to go back to the people until this Court was se:t up. I did not know when the Royal Commission sat that Kemp and Warena had been declared to be trustees in No. 11. I did not hear that the Boyal Commission took the same view, or if I did I have forgotten it. I heard the decision of this Court, that Warena and Kemp were trustees for the tribe. I did not hear Wirihana say before this Court that the land belonged to Warena absolutely, or Kemp say that he and Warena were merely trustees for the tribe. I heard outside that Kemp said he and Warena were trustees, but he mahi kohuru te mahi o mua. Kemp said he was a trustee, but went about eating the land himself. My father told me about the boundary between Pariri and Te Eongo. No one else told me about it. My mother did not. I was in Wanganui when my father was killed. Ido not know how long it was before he went to fight that he told me about the boundary. I remember the payment to Ngatiapa for Wharekura. I had returned from school then (December, 1866). It was long after I lefc school that my father told me about the boundary, but long before the Court of 1873. It was while the land and the people were under the mana of Te Whatanui. My father told me about the boundary so that I might understand that there had been a boundary in former times. Ido not know why he told me. He did not tell me to set up a claim. I do not know why he did not tell me the whole of the boundary. I said nothing. There was nobody present when he told me. He told me in a house at Otaewa. I attended Court of 1873. I did not mention the boundary to any one then or since until now. I kept it to myself in my mind. There are some things that are easily forgotten, and others that are always borne in mind. I cannot say why I have never mentioned the boundary to any one. The other boundary commenced a little above Te Eaumatangi; thence to Te Eeti, outside of Moutere, on to Whangaingai and the Ngatihuia boundary. I heard of this boundary from Wirihana Hunia and Hoani Puihi. I heard it from Hoani Puihi a long time ago. Wirihana told me about it some time ago, and

G.—2a.

86

again at this Court. He told me because I knew very little of such matters, and the knowledge would be useful to me in such cases as this. He told me before the Commission sat. Ido not know why he told me. He told me at Otaewa. Taraua Utiku came to Otaewa with him, but we were alone when Wirihana told me about the boundary. I do not remember whether it was before the Court of 1890, but it was long after the Court of 1886. Hoani Puihi told Wirihana and me about the boundary before Wirihana told me about it, perhaps a year before. Hoani Puihi had nearly finished telling Wirihana about the boundary when I joined them, and Hoani Puihi told me about it. I knew all about it, but still Wirihana Hunia told me about it again. My father was not a pononga of Te Whatanui's; he was under Te Whatanui's mana ; all the people were. I got the Pukaahu eel-pa from my father, who bought it it from Te Whatanui, but it had previously belonged to Tairatu and Te Horapoto. It was not until after 1873 that the pas in Hokio were worked which had not been purchased from Te Whatanui. Te Pokaka was worked before 1886. I got it from my ancestors. The land came back to us in 1873, and we returned and exercised our rights. Tamati Maunu told me about Te-pa-o-taniwha. My father cultivated at Waikoukou. Ido not know the year. It was during Te Whatanui's time. Pararaurekau : I saw my father working there; he had a right to do so from his ancestors. Tiu-a-te-kaahu-nui and Tiu-a-te-kaahu-iti: My grandfather worked those swamps ; they are dry now. Waiwiri belongs to me, but I cannot give the names of any eel-pas there. The Court adjourned till the 4th instant.

Levin, Feiday, 4th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Himiona Kowhai re-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I do not know Hoani Manahita, whose name appears on the lease read by Bawiri yesterday. [Horowhenua Commission, page 314.] I never heard of any Muaupoko of that name. I have not heard that it is another name for Hoani Puihi. He was at Horowhenua in 1867, the year the lease was signed. Hanita Kowhai could not write. Ido not remember the lease read by Bawiri. The only lease I remember is the one my father and mother drew rent for; that was for the land north of Hokio. I cannot understand why my father's name does not appear on the lease read by Bawiri, because he was the custodian of a lease for north side of Hokio during his lifetime, and took the most active part in connection with it. When my father went to fight he left the lease with my mother, who gave it to Hunia after refusing to deliver it to Pene Taui. Ido not remember hearing of two concurrent leases for the land north of Hokio. The only other lease I have heard of was the one drawn by Sir Walter Buller after 1873. Ido not know why women did not sign lease which appears on Horowhenua Commission, page 314. My mother went to receive her share of rent with other Muaupoko. Te Awarua is another name for Te Baorao. Hura identical with Pioka. Wi Perahama is same as Whatukituki. I do not know who Pehira Maruawhe is, but I believe he is same as Pehira Tuwharetoa, who was put in the rerewaho list. I think Wiremu Hori must be Wiremu Matakatea. Wiremu Hopihana was elder brother of Noa Tame. I do not not know who Hoe was. No Muaupoko of that name so far as I know. I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the boundary between Te Bongo and Ngatikokopu. I have heard of Taheke, but I do not know where he came from. Heard his name mentioned in a waiata. The descendants of Pariri worked at Te Kawiu and Te Watutua. They lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. All the people lived there because the land south of Hokio was completely under Te Whatanui's mana. Tamati Maunu, Bewiri, and Hanita were the only Muaupoko who cultivated south of Hokio, but they lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. When Ngatikokopu were conquered some of them remained on the land under the mana of Bangihikaka, as the Muaupoko did when the land was under the mana of Te Whatanui. The Muaupoko now look back to the takes of their ancestors as they existed before Te Whatanui's mana. I admit the rights of the descendants of Ngatikokopu do go back to the takes of their ancestors previous to their conquest. I refer to those who have remained in occupation. Pioka did not mention Te Whatanui's mana to me at all. My father told me about it. Te Whatanui leased the whole of the land south of Hokio himself; he also took part in the lease north of Hokio; this confirms what my father told me of Te Whatanui's mana over the land. The fact that my father and Noa bought from Whatanui the right to use two eel-weirs in Hokio Stream, and that Muaupoko did not fish in Hokio Stream in Whatanui's time, is further confirmation. Hunia had Kupe built on this land. He spent his all in connection with Horowhenua. [Vol. 1, page 47, Kemp: " During all this time Kawana Hunia used to visit Muaupoko," &c] I agree with that evidence of Major Kemp's. At the time of the killing of the cattle Kemp was fighting against Titokowaru. [Horowhenua Commission, page 166, questions 264 to 266, read.] I remember giving that evidence; it has always been my opinion. I was told that by law No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena. [Horowhenua Commission, page 167, question 275, read.] I meant by that that it would have been our fault for putting the land into their hands to distribute without any express stipulation. [Declaration of trust signed by Kemp on the 23rd March, 1890, read.] I never heard of that deed of trust before. I never heard of Kemp having, after 1890, offered any part of No. 11 to Muaupoko, or any of them. So far as I know, no action was ever taken on Kemp's deed of trust. Ido not know of anybody who has benefited by it. The fact that Ngatipariri only

87

(jr.— 2a

have occupied south of the boundary between Pariri and Te Bongo is confirmation of the statement made by my father that there was such a boundary. I have not heard of any descendant of Te Bongo living south of the boundary. When I said that the boundary was straight I did not mean that it was a straight line. It goes from point to point. Pokaka eel-pa is a long way below Whatanui's residence. It was worked before 1886 by Biwai te Amo. Ido not remember whether he worked it before 1873. To Raiviri Rota (through Court) : I do not know the date I first went to school or the day I left. Ido not know that my father said I was born in 1859 ;he did not tell me so. Ido not know how long my father had been away from Horowhenua when he was killed [Baptismal register, Parish of Kapiti, for 1859, put in, containing notice of baptism of Himiona Kowhai on the 31st July, 1859.] To Assessor : I do not know whether Te Buatapu and children and Potangotango all came together, but heard they all came here about the same time. The land conquered from Ngatikokopu was given to Tairatu, not to his parents. It was a wedding-gift when he married Maewa. This is what I have been told. Makere is a Ngatikokopu on her mother's side, and partly on her father's side, but I cannot give her genealogy. If any of Ngatikokopu remained on the land during the troubles with Te Whatanui their rights to the land would revive, and would be as good as those of the descendants of Tairatu and Te Horapoto, who went away and returned after the troubles were over. I have never heard from the old people that Whatanui and Taueki made peace ; the story has been invented lately. There was only one peace-making, and that was at Karekare, between Whatanui on one side and Te Hakeke and Taiweherua. If Kereopa Tukumaru has said that Te Whatanui made peace with Taueki he was wrong. I never heard of it. Ido not know of any boundary between Te Whatanui and Muaupoko. I heard of a boundary, but do not know what it was intended to define. Te Whatanui cultivated at Te Watutua and many other places north of alleged boundary. The boundary I heard of started at Tawhitikuri; thence to Te Tau-o-te-Buru, and on to Horowhenua Lake. Ido not know that it was after that boundary was laid down that Te Whatanui ceased to cultivate at Te Watutua. The lease of land north of Hokio extended from Hokio Stream to the Ngatihuia boundary. Whatanui had a right to join in the lease because he had the mana over all the land. It was not because the lease comprised a part of the land he acquired by his arrangement with Muaupoko. Ido not know who of Muaupoko agreed to the boundary between them and Te Whatanui. Ido not know that Taueki and Whatanui fixed the boundary. To Court: The Muaupoko took fish from the Horowhenua Lake in Whatanui's time, but none of them fished in Hokio Stream. I will not admit that it was alleged boundary that prevented them. None of Muaupoko can gainsay my statements—not any of them got eels in Hokio Stream while it was under the mana of Te Whatanui. He mea hanga noa atu te maunga rongo a Taueki raua ko Te Whatanui. The lease that I know of is the lease that my father's name is in, but the one printed in exhibits to Horowhenua Commission's report does not contain my father's name. Te Whatanui made the lease of the land to the north of Hokio. Na te rironga o te ivhenua i a ia i mana ai Te Whatanui i noho taurekareka nga mea taurekareka o Ngatikokopu maku te Whakaaro ki a ratou. I noho taurekareka a Muaupoko ki a Te Whatanui. I noho ratou i raro i te mana o Te Whatanui. It was in 1873 that this state of affairs was changed. Ehara i te mea raupatu na Kaivana Hunia that disturbed the occupation of Te Whatanui, engari na te Ture i takahi te mana o Te Whatanui. Ido not admit any of the family of Kawana Hunia but Wirihana, because they all live at a distance. I do not consent to Kawana Hunia's name being included in No. 11 for that reason. I am not acquainted with matters of olden times. The Court called upon Wirihana Hunia to tender himself for cross-examination by Mr. Fraser, as arranged. Wieihana Hunia cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness :I am the owner of all this land —I and those whose rights I admit—whose rights are the same as mine. This reply affects the whole of No. 11 now before the Court, and some other parts outside of No. 11. By those having the same rights as myself I mean those who have the same ancestral and occupatory rights as myself. I will consider those who have the same ancestral rights as myself, but who fled. I obtain my ancestral rights from Pariri. My ancestral right commenced before Pariri. My ancestors occupied this land before Pariri's time. My ancestor Amarumoari occupied it. My father, Kawana Hunia, told me so. I knew of the occupation of Amarumoari before 1890—long before. Amarumaori lived at Moutere. I heard this from Kawana Hunia and Te Bangirurupuni. I heard when I was living here that Moutere was a sacred place from Te Bangirurupuni and his wife. I heard Bangirurupuni talking to my father about it at Bangitikei; afterwards, at a place called Pakapakatea. It was from these sources only that I learnt about the sacred place. [Vol. 13, page 254, witness's evidence :" I claim from Pariri. I have not heard who occupied this land before Pariri."] I did not wish to claim from Tupatunui then, although I mentioned his name. [Vol. 13, page 266, same witness :" Te Angiimua belonged to Muaupoko and Hamua. I have not heard who of his ancestors occupied this land."] Ido not think I could have said that Te Angiimua was of Muaupoko, because I knew he was a Hamua. [Vol. 13, pages 253 et seq., same witness: " Hanita Kowhai instructed me about Kaewa's head being buried at Owhenga, and warned me about the sacred places."] That is true; I saw Kaewa's head brought here. Hanita did not tell me about Amarurnoari's sacred place. He told me about the sacred places of Tohu at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Tupatunui lived at Taikoria. I have not heard that his descendants lived there down to and including Ngataitoko. If Muaupoko say that none of Tupatunui's descendants down to Ngataitoko lived at Horowhenua they will be speaking falsely. They have no chief or educational establishments now. I did not say in 1890 that Amarumaori

G.—2a

88

occupied this land, because I felt sure I could defeat Kemp without going beyond Pariri, because he had no right to this land. lam going down to the bed-rock now. What I meant in 1890 and 1891 was that there were several generations between Tupatunui and Ngataitoko whose occupation I knew nothing of. I did not consider that the occupation of Amarumoari was of much consequence to me in 1890. I thought I could defeat Kemp without mentioning him. Ido not remember hearing from any Muaupoko now living that Amarumoari and his descendants down to Ngataitoko occupied Horowhenua. Hoani Puihi and I have talked about it ; he did not discredit me. I believe Ngawai Kingi heard me telling Hoani Puihi that Amarumoari lived at Moutere. Hoani Puihi did not admit Amarumoari's occupation, but he traced himself from Kawainga, who was a descendant of his. Hoani Puihi, Ngawai Kingi, and Hariata Tinotahi have heard me assert that Amarumoari lived at Moutere and had a house there called Nga-hihi-o-te-ra, and also had a spring there. When I was living here, as a youth, the vegetation on the summit of Moutere would not burn; it may now. I claim this land from Pariri only, not from Bongopatahi or Kawainga. I claim a right over the whole of No. 11 Block from Pariri. Those whose rights I admit are also descendants of Pariri, and others of my tribe. There are some descendants of Pariri and Te Bongo who had rights, but who gave their rights to Te Whatanui, and I got it back again. I will consider them. I will consider all my tribe. Pariri did not own the whole of this land. Te Bongo owned part of it. There was a division between them. lam not a descendant of Te Bongo. I claim a right to her land because her descendants gave it to Te Whatanui, or allowed him to take it, and I recovered it from him. Te Whatanui took the whole of the land, not only the Pariri portion. Te Whatanui prevented the Ngatihuia encroaching from the north. This was shortly before I came here. If Te Whatanui had not prevented it, Ngatihuia would have had the land down to north end of lake. All the Ngatipariri portion had gone to Te Whatanui. All the Muaupoko lived as Te Whatanui's taurekareka until 1873 ; not the Pariri only. Those who were captured by Te Whatanui were his taurekareka. Those who lived under his mana were his pononga. The Ngatihine were the most degraded. Te Bangihouhia was a tangata of Te Whatanui. I heard of Bangihouhia killing Te Whatanui's pigs :it was not a theft; it was a challenge. He did not run away to Bangitikei for fear of Te Whatanui. Hunia took him away. He was a cripple. Tamati Maunu ran away to Bangitikei when Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were killed. My mother married Hakeke when she was very young. She was taken prisoner by Ngatiraukawa at Oroua. She was married to Hakeke when she was taken prisoner. She escaped to Waipata, and was taken back to Hakeke. It was in my own time that we acquired control of Te Bongo's lands, not in the time of our ancestors. The land south of the line belonged to Pariri and her descendants, and that north of the line to Te Bongo and her descendants until my own time. Te Whatanui took the whole of the land on both sides of the boundary, and my father recovered it; therefore the people should not endeavour to turn me out. My ancestral right from Pariri has never been extinguished, because we never gave way to Whatanui. All other ancestral rights were abolished in Te Whatanui's time. All Muaupoko were conquered, but my hapu always strove to recover their rights—l mean Toheriri, Takare, and Paipai in their time, and after them Te Bangihouhia, and, since the introduction of law, my father. The land went to Whatanui as well as the people. I heard this a long time ago from my father. The whole of Horowhenua was taken by conquest of Ngatitoa. Te Bauparaha got Horowhenua. The Muaupoko were defeated. Some of them were taken prisoners; others ran away; a few remained on the land, and after Karekare they lived under Whatanui, by whose intervention they were spared by Bauparaha. I heard from my father, Ngatiapa, Bangitane, and Muaupoko that the Muaupoko lived under Te Whatanui as his pononga. My father gave evidence at the Court of 1873. I know that he denied there was any conquest of this land, or that Muaupoko were ever in subjection. He said that because it would have been fatal to have admitted then that Muaupoko had been conquered. He was a man of great ability, and very tricky. Ido not think the Court was misled, but the Court knew that if it was awarded to Whatanui there would have been serious trouble on this coast. Kawana Hunia knew that the land had been conquered when he said it had not; he was speaking on behalf of Muaupoko. He would never admit in 1873 that it had been conquered, although he told me that it had. I say that the descendants of Te Bongo and Pariri are the persons who have rights to this land. I cannot say offhand which descendants of Te Bongo have no right. Ido not admit the rights of all descendants of Pariri. I cannot name all I object to now. Te Bangihikaka was a grandson of Pariri; he lived on this land south of boundary. The descendants of Te Bongo lived north of the boundary at that time. Ido not know who they were. Mauruhau was the grandchild of Bangihikaka. The descendants of Te Bongo will know who of her descendants were living on this land in time of Mauruhau. In Kaewa's time I think Te Bangirurupuni, Wereta (father of Paranihia Biwai), Matene Pakauwera, Te Hahama (who was killed by Te Bauparaha) were the descendants of Te Bongo living on this land. There were others, but I have forgotten them. The Court adjourned till the sth instant.

Levin, Satueday, sth June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. . . Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. No. 4, Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others, claiming to be beneficially interested. Mr. A. McDonald's Case —continued. Wieihana Hunia cross-examined by Mr. Fraser. Mr. McDonald put in a document with reference to the persons admitted by Wirihana Hunia, and those objected to by him.

89

G.—2a

Mr. Fraser could not accept the information as a reply to the question put by him yesterday. Witness : The Ngatipariri have a case of their own ; they can speak of their rights. lam only speaking for myself and Himiona Kowhai. I have put in a list of descendants of Pariri who I say should prove their rights to the land. Ido not know who of the descendants of Pariri have no rights to this land. Ido not know who of the descendants of Pariri now living have rights to this land. Karaitiana Tarawahi, Makere te Bou, Tamati Maunu (the latter had a right, but he ran away to Bangitikei, and did not return until after peace was made). These and the descendants of Te Aowhakapupu are the Ngatipariri who have no right. The descendants of Te Aowhakapupu are Mata Huikirangi, Bahira Wirihana, and Hopa Heremaia. The descendants of Taurimoa—Mere Mionga, her children, and grandchildren—have no right. Pirihira Arahura—a descendant of Pariri, through Moe —has no right. Some of the descendants of Kopani have no right—viz., Hopa te Piki and his sister, Petite Kohu and their descendants, Hone Tupou and children, Bihari Tarakihi and family. There are some of the descendants of Te Hikapirau who have no right—viz., Kerehi Tomo, Wirihana Tarewa and family, Tame Tawhati and family. These are all. I did not see any of these people working on the Pariri side of the boundary. Pariri = Te Hukui I Hineitohua = Angiimua Hineitohua and Te Angiimua lived here, I think, because Horowhenua was the kainga of Pariri. I never heard that Hineitohua and Te Angiimua lived at Horowhenua. Their parents lived at Whakatupoki, near Waipata. Ido not know where Te Angiimua died. I heard in 1890 from Muaupoko that he was killed at Hongoeka, Pukerua. That was the first I heard of it. Huratepapa was younger brother of Te Angiimua ; he married Tui. I have not heard that Bangihikaka lived at Pukehou; he lived at Papaitonga. I have not heard that when Te Angiimua died Huratepapa adopted Bangihikaka, and brought him to Horowhenua. I did not hear from my elders that Bangihikaka only lived a few years at Horowhenua. I did not hear that Bangihikaka had to fly to Wairarapa for sorcery. He died at Wairarapa. He went there to see his daughter Niho, who had been taken to Wairarapa by Hamua. I have not heard the whakataueki, " Haere c haere iti c roa nga ra c whakaaro." I have heard of a tinder-stick called Haereiti in 1890. I heard the descendants of Te Piro say in 1890 that it belonged to Te Piro. I did not hear formerly that Ngamaihi was a ferryman on the Manawatu Biver. I heard that he was a rangatira. I have not heard that it was because Ngamaihi lost the tinder-stick that Te Piro attacked him, assisted by Te Bangihikaka. I have not heard that Te Piro went to Bangihikaka at Waitawa for assistance. I heard that Te Bangihikaka was at Papaitonga. Ido not know what ancestor of Makere was attacked by Te Piro and Bangihikaka, but she is a Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura. Ido not know who Tumata's father was. Ido not know that Te Arahi was a brother of Te Piro. If that was so he must also have been a Ngatikokopu. Te Piro attacked the Ngatikokopu for removing his eel-basket from a weir. Ido not know where Bangihikaka was born. I have heard that he always lived here. [Vol. 13, p. 268, read: "I do not know where Bangihikaka was born, neither when he first came on to this land."] That is what I say now. I did not hear that Bangihikaka lived permanently at Buamahanga. Heard he lived at Papaitonga. Have not heard that he lived at Buamahanga. [Vol. 13, p. 269, read: "Te Bangihikaka lived at Buamahanga, and died there."] If I said that it would be right. He went there to see his daughter. Te Bangihikaka married Te Waha, but I do not know where she came from. I do not think I have ever said she was of Ngatirangi. Their child was Whitirea, who married Kahoro, of Ngaitiere, not of Ngatirangi. The Ngaitiere were descendants of Te Bangiheheke. I never heard that Kahoro was a Ngatirangi. I never heard where Whitirea and Kahoro lived. Their child was Mauruhau, who married Karoro, of Ngatirangi and Ngatikaitangata. Ido not know where they lived; I was never told. Ido not know where they died. I never heard that they lived at Waitawa, but that land was theirs. Kaewa married Te Hakeke. I have not heard where she was born. I was not told that she lived at Waitawa till she was grown up. I do not know whether Hotoke was killed before or after the marriage of Kaewa and Hakeke. I have not heard that Te Bangihouhia came here for the first time after killing Hotoke. I heard that he went from here to kill Hotoke. I do not know how long it was between killing of Hotoke and Whatanui's pigs. I have not heard that Bangihouhia fled to Bangitikei after killing Whatanui's pigs. Kawana Hunia took him from here to Bangitikei in a canoe. The whole of Muaupoko were building a pa at Bangitikei for Hunia at the time. Te Bangihouhia died at Bangitikei. Kaewa lived at Waipata before she married Hakeke. I was not told that she lived at Waitawa. I never heard that. Kawana Hunia lived permanently at Bangitikei. It would not be correct to say he lived at Horowhenua. His brother Wirihana was the one selected to live here. I heard that Wirihana Maihi lived here. I did not hear that he lived permanently at Bangitikei. He was injured by a fall from a horse in Wanganui. I did not hear that he was being brought here to be treated by a tohunga named Tohu. He was being brought here, and died at mouth of Manawatu. Te Bangihouhia married Pura. I heard that she was a Ngatimoewaka. I cannot show her connection with that hapu, but I believe they were descendants of Kupe. Ihaka Bangihouhia lived for many years at Bangitikei with Hunia; other Muaupoko lived there also. I did not hear that Hunia illtreated him. Hunia sent Ihaka and Biwai te Amo back to Horowhenua. I do not remember being baptized, but I heard that I was christened at Poroutawhao. lam much older than Himiona Kowhai. I was at Horowhenua when he was born. I was a good-sized lad then. Ani Patene and Te Bangirurupuni were with me in the house on the night of the great earthquake. Ido not know what year Taueki died. I was at Bangitikei. Ngatiapa came to the tangihanga. I believe I came, but I am not sure. I returned from here to Bangitikei about 1860, and have lived permanently there ever since; but I have been backwards and forwards to Horowhenua. Hanita Kowhai lived at Horowhenua until he went to the wars. [Vol. 13, page 253: "Hanita

12— G. 2a.

&.—2a

90

Kowhai instructed me about Kaewa's head," &c. "He also told me about my ancestors."] I gave that evidence. Hanita gave me the evidence before 1860, when I was living here. I have heard that Ngatiraukawa attempted to survey this block in 1860. Ngatipariri stopped it. Kawana Hunia had nothing to do with it. I remember the telegraph-line being taken across this line. I have not heard that Muaupoko gave permission. I do not know. I have not heard of a serious dispute in 1867 between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko at Ngatokorua. Kawana Hunia was not here then, nor was I. I have heard of a dispute previous to that. The dispute of 1867 may have been the one Peeti te Aweawe came here about. I have not heard of a serious disturbance between Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa in 1869 at Mahoenui. I have heard that Muaupoko killed some of McDonald's cattle in 1855. Kawana Hunia told them to do so. He came here at the time. It was not a committee of Muaupoko who decided to do it. The first beast was killed at Makomako, and not at Te Puapua. This must have been 1857 or 1858. The second killing was at Te Ihu-o-henga. I never heard that Hoani Puihi was arrested and tried at Otaki for killing cattle. I never heard that Hopa Heremaia was arrested on a similar charge. There was no one arrested until after 1873. Himiona te Hopu died at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. I was at Bangitikei. I had gone there on a visit. I do not know that he died at Otaki. The descendants of Kaewa have had out of Horowhenua —the State farm, 1,500 acres ; seven shares in No. 3, 735 acres. Some of the descendants of Kaewa are among the rerewaho. Ido not think the area awarded to us is sufficient to satisfy our rights. My father had great mana. He was a toa, and did not run away at Te Ngutu-o-te-manu, as Kemp did. I have conducted all my brother's affairs in connection with Horowhenua. Mr. Barnicoat prepared a petition for us in 1891. I gave it to Ngatipariri, Hoani Puihi and others, Himiona Kowhai and others. Ido not remember whether I saw any one sign it. I saw Hoani Puihi and Himiona Kowhai sign it. I believe I signed it. I did not sign any one else's name to it; at least, Ido not remember doing so. I know the contents of the petition, or the most important of them. Karaitiana Tarawahi has always lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. Te Baroraro also lived there. Ido not know where Heminga lived. I never heard. I have not heard where Hinematahirangi lived. Bahira Wirihana lives at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. So did Bititia. Makere has always lived at Te Puata, near Te Bae-o-te-karaka. I heard that Tawhati-a-Tumata lived at Poroutawhao. Think he died at Horowhenua. I do not know his cultivations on this land. I do not know where Taurimoa lived. I have heard that Hikapirau was a permanent resident of Horowhenua, but do not know where he cultivated. I have not seen his descendants working on Pariri side. Biria Peene lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka before she married. The stock of all Muaupoko have been running on the land south of Hokio for years without objection—on grass that I sowed. I remember my father coming to Horowhenua to put up a fence. That was when Pataka was built. It was 1878 or 1879. The Muaupoko prevented my father putting up the fence, but I have fenced part of the land since. The Muaupoko prevented my father putting up his fence, because they said he had no right to the land, and they told him so. That was not his first assertion of right to the land. He had Kupe built, and assisted to build Pipiriki Pa ; also burnt Te Watene's houses. These are all assertions of right. I do not know that it was Kemp and Muaupoko who built Pipiriki, without any assistance from Hunia. Pipiriki Pa belonged to Kemp, Hunia, and Muaupoko. Hunia was at Horowhenua when Pipiriki was built; he stayed in the pa; so I heard from himself. Kemp said in his evidence in 1890 that he and Hunia built the pa. Muaupoko had no pas in Hokio in Whatanui's time. I have heard of the meeting at Tainui in 1861 or 1862. I went to it from Horowhenua. The Muaupoko did not take eels from Hokio to that meeting. I did not see any. I heard Himiona Kowhai's evidence as to ownership of eel-swamps on this block. It was true. I do not know of any Muaupoko who will corroborate his evidence on the subject of eel-swamps. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : It was not an unusual thing for a chief to invoke the aid of another chief against his own relatives. It was customary in such cases to give land in return for such assistance. In other cases the chief who assisted acquired the land by conquest. The reason I object to the descendants of Te Aowhakapupu is that I did not see them working on the Pariri side of the boundary. As to descendants of Te Awhea, I objected to Tamati Maunu because he ran away and left the land. I object to Tanguru for the same reason. I object to descendants of Te Moe because I did not see any cultivations of theirs on Pariri side of boundary. Some of descendants of Kopani I object to for same reason. I object to descendants of Hikapirau because I have not heard of their working on Pariri's land. I object to Kerehi Tomo on the Pariri side only; his cultivations are on Te Bongo's side. I have same objection to Wirihana Tarewa. I do not know where Kahoro and Whitirea lived. Kahoro's lands were at Waikawa. He was a Muaupoko. The Muaupoko went to Awahou to build a pa for Te Hakeke. They left Bangihouhia at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. He was a cripple. Hunia fetched him away in a canoe. I have not heard why Hunia fetched him, except that he thought Te Bangihouhia ought not to be left here alone. I have not heard where my parents took me from to Poroutawhao to be christened. I think I must have been brought to Horowhenua before I was baptized. I did not hear of the Ngatiraukawa survey at the time. Heard of it recently. Himiona Kowhai told me that Ngatipariri stopped it. I was present at one boundary disturbance between Muaupoko and Ngatihuia. A carved post was put up at Ngatokorua. This was before the disturbance in which Te Peeti took part. Himiona te Hopu, Hanita Kowhai, and all Muaupoko went to the boundary at the time I speak of. Epiha te Biunui or Taitimu, and Hoia, father of Tamihana, were the Ngatihuia chiefs present. Both sides agreed to the boundary being where the posts were put in. Kemp was not present. Ngatihine caused the trouble about the boundary afterwards. Wirihana Tarewa wanted Poroutawhao included in Muaupoko land, and Te Peeti came here as mediator. Ngatihuia wanted the boundary shifted south to Parepare, near Horowhenua Lake. The flagstaff Tainui was erected

91

G.—2a

twice. Te Kirimauri was the name of the house there. I did not see any Muaupoko food at either of the Tainui meetings. Muaupoko did not take eels or any other food to either meeting. To Assessor : Ido not know why Temou was spared. I do not know that it was because Te Uira's wife belonged here that she was spared. I have not heard. The long occupation of the descendants of Potangotango would give them some right, but it should be left to the descendants of Pariri and Te Bongo to decide the extent of their rights. The Ngatihine, Ngaiteao, and Ngatiwhano must, in my opinion, also rely upon the generosity of Ngatipariri and Ngatirongo, the owners of the soil. I deny that Te Kahu was a child of Bongopatahi. It was because Hunia was endeavouring to remove Te Whatanui's mana from the land that he took the lease from Iritana and gave it to Muaupoko, with a direction that Te Whatanui was not to be allowed to take part in any further leasing ; he was acting in the interests of his people. I believe that if Hunia was alive now he would claim the right, as I do, to divide the land among his hapus. Ido not think he would have excluded any of the residents. I cannot say whether he would have held that all the persons in the certificate should share equally. Ido not think he would have. In Te Whatanui's time the Pariri land was absolutely under his control, but I do not think he said who of Ngatipariri should live on it and who should not. At any rate, not as regards Tamati Maunu and Hanita Kowhai. I do not know why Hanita Kowhai lived with Whatanui. I heard that he bought from Whatanui the right to use an eel-pa in Hokio. All Muaupoko assisted Kawana Hunia to disturb the occupation of Ngatiraukawa between Papaitonga and Horowhenua, by burning their houses and destroying their crops. Ngatiapa, Bangitane, and Hamua were all prepared to assist in the event of any disturbance. The members of those tribes on the title have been awarded land in the block in return for the assistance they rendered at the Court of 1873. The residue of the land should be for the Muaupoko who have rights to it, and in the relative proportions that they are entitled to according to Maori custom. Those who have large rights should have large shares, and those who have small rights should have smaller shares. Mr. McDonald said he would not close his case to-day, as he had more witnesses to call. The Court said it was necessary to adjourn to Wellington, and it would inform agents when the sittings here would be resumed. It was impossible to decide now when the Court could return. All cases before the Court relating to the Horowhenua Block adjourned to Wellington till the 15th instant. The Court adjourned to Wellington till the 15th instant.

Wellington, Tuesday, 15th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: W. J. Butler, Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. All cases relating to the Horowhenua Block called on pursuant to adjournment from Levin, and further adjourned till the 24th instant, at the Government Buildings, Wellington. The Court adjourned till the 24th instant.

Wellington, Thuesday, 24th June, 1897. The Court opened at 9.30 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge. All cases relating to the Horowhenua Block called on and adjourned till the 25th instant, at Levin. The Court adjourned till the 25th instant.

Levin, Feiday, 25th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. All the cases adjourned from Wellington on the 24th instant called on for hearing. Owing to the absence of Judge Butler, who was detained in Wellington to complete certain business before the Appellate Court there, and also to the non-arrival of Mr. Fraser, the agent for Muaupoko, and the possibility of Sir Walter Buller, the solicitor for Kemp, having to proceed to Wanganui to give evidence before the Native Land Court there, it was decided to postpone the proceedings till Monday, the 28th instant. The Court adjourned till the 28th instant.

Levin, Monday, 28th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge, presiding; W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge ; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor; A. H. Mackay, Clerk; H. McDonald, Interpreter. All cases adjourned from the 25th instant called on. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. McDonald stated that he did not intend to call any other witnesses in this case. He asked the Court to note that Wirihana Hunia had been appointed successor to Ihaka te Bangihouhia, and intimated that it was probable he would call further evidence when No. 12 and No. 6 were before the Court. Case closed. The Court notified that it proposed to go on with Bia Hamuera's case.

92

G.—2a

Mr. McDonald stated that Bia had written to him referring him to her relatives here, but the latter seemed disinclined to admit her into No. 11. A her relatives were Mr. Fraser's clients, and he was apparently the only conductor who objected to .er. Sir W. Buller, on behalf of Mr. Fraser, said the tribe objected to her on the ground that she had no occupation. The Court said that under the circumstances it would seem advisable for Bia to set up a case for herself. Ria Hamuera said she had instructed Mr. Hankins to appear for her when the case first opened, but Mr. McDonald had advised her to withdraw her retainer. She now authorised Wi Kiriwehi to act for her. License granted to Wi Kiriwehi. Case of Ria Raikokiritia. Wi Kiriwehi called Bia Hamuera or Baikokiritia. Bia Baikokieitia sworn. Witness : I live at Parewanui. Am a Ngatiwhano, a hapu of Muaupoko. I know the land now before the Court. Ido not understand maps. I have a right to this land from my ancestor Potangotango. I can trace my descent from — Potangotango = Pirihonga (first wife) I Whanokirangi = Tamiao (of Ngaiteao) | Te Hape Te Matangi Tukoko = Ngawha Maru | | (no issue) Te Kaimaoa Whakaaturangi = Hura te Rua Te Raorao Konihi | | | | Ria Raikokiritia | | H. T. Hopu Pirihira te Rau Ani Kanara Ngariki (no issue) My younger brothers and sisters are all dead. They are buried at Horowhenua. Potangotango = Tokai (second wife) I Tapuwae I Taueki I Ihaia Taueki Tokai had other children, but I will not refer to them. My ancestors had cultivations on the land —I mean Potangotango and Whanokirangi; they had cultivations at Opiki, near the road running down to the lake. They also cultivated at Ngurunguru, near landing-place on this side of lake. Patiki, just beyond Ngurunguru, belonged to same people. Te Kawiu : A cultivation used by descendants of Potangotango. There is an eel-pa near latter place. I think it is called Pakauhokio. Te Baorao worked there. Mairua: Another cultivation of descendants of Potangotango. They cultivate there now. Pukearuhe : A kainga and pa of my ancestors. My brothers are buried there —Ngapuhou and Ngawaewae. Te Namuiti: Apa of my ancestors, the descendants of Potangotango; still to be seen. Te Waitahi: A kainga and cultivation. My brothers (? cousins) built a house forme there. I mean Ngariki te Baorao and Winara. Tau-a-te-ruru : A kainga and cultivation of descendants of Potangotango. Te Bua Kaka :An eel-pa in Hokio Stream, near H. McDonald's house. There was a fern-root ground just above it; both belonged to descendants of Potangotango. These are all the kaingas and cultivations I know of personally. I have cultivated at Ngurunguru. Hura te Bua brought his wife back to this land from Bangitikei. He also brought a canoe called "Pukepuke," and a flint-lock gun called Taringakuri, which belonged to Kingi te Awha. Hura te Bua gave the canoe and gun to Te Baorao and Konihi. He then returned to Bangitikei, and brought back a drove of pigs for the same people. He made these presents because his wife belonged here. My father lived here a considerable time. Some of our family died here, and he returned to Bangitikei. My two brothers who died at Pukearuhe were born there. I was born at Bangitikei. We used to come here on visits after our return to Parewanui. My father died about 1849; after his death my brother was in the habit of visiting Horowhenua. Two years after my father died I married Te Baikokiritia. When Taueki died my sister married Hopa te Piki here. Her children are buried here. She died at Bangitikei. I and my husband have frequently come to Horowhenua on visits. In 1873 all Ngatiapa attended the Court at Foxton. My husband, Te Baikokiritia, contributed £100 towards the legal expenses in connection with hearing of Horowhenua. He did not wish it returned to him. He gave the money because I had a right to Horowhenua. The money was collected by Kemp's people for purpose of returning it to Hamuera Baikokiritia, but Wirihana took it, and did not give any of it to my husband. The boundary of Ngatokorua was fixed by Himiona te Hopu. All the present residents of Horowhenua are new-comers; they are the descendants of persons who were enslaved. Te Bangimairehau has only lately returned, and has no right to Horowhenua. Pariri's kainga was at Porirua; every one knows that. Her descendants only came here for fear of Ngatiraukawa. She had no rights at Horowhenua. Makere te Bou and Hariata Maunu, the descendants of Taueki, have rights to this land. Taueki had great mana over this land. Kerehi Tomo, Hopa te Piki, Winara, Ani Kanara also have good rights. Keepa te Bangihiwinui I admit; he is a descendant of Tireo and Te Biunga. Tupatunui never lived on this land ; he lived at Taikoria; so did his son Amarumoari. I have never heard of a boundary between Pariri and Te Bongopatahi at

G.—2a

93

Horowhenua. Ngatipariri and Ngatihine.fled to Oroua and Manawatu for fear of Ngatiraukawa. My tupunas remained at Namuiti. W fen my parents lived here we lived and cultivated at the places I have named. My husband sent' the canoe " Tikitiki " here ; he did so because I belonged here. Himiona te Hopu was the principal man of Muaupoko in his day. He lived here ; so did Konihi. Himiona te Hopu and Konihi being dead, I and my brothers and sister inherit their rights by occupation. Te Maru's rights should go to us and Ngariki and Ani Kanara. Maru cultivated at the places I have named ; he was killed at Horowhenua by Ngatiraukawa. Taitoko put my name in the title to this land in 1873. He did so because he knew I had a right to it. To Court: Tukoko married Te Ngawha, from the South Island; he was brought here by Muaupoko, and was killed by Ngatiraukawa. Te Whakaaturangi was born and grew up here ; she married Heru, of Muaupoko, first. Hura te Bua was a Ngatiapa. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I have heard of Tupatunui. He was a descendant of Hapai Taketake. I am a descendant of his. Tamataane I Tupatunui I Amarumoari I Tukawheao Te Ataiihaea Paewaru I Te Matangiaurunui Te Raupakatu I Tokouru Tawitia Ngoio Hura te Rua I Ria Raikokiritia Hororita was not the father of Tupatunui. Hura te Bua never told me that Tupatunui owned Horowhenua. I never heard that Amarumoari had a house at Moutere called Nga-hihi-o-te-ra. Tupatunui was set up by Wirihana Hunia as the ancestor for Batahi Block. He has many descendants among Ngatiapa. Te Hakeke was a descendant of Tupatunui, but I cannot trace his descent beyond Bangitikei, who was from Amarumoari, son of Tupatunui. I have never heard that Tupatunui had any right to Horowhenua. Hariata Maunu was a descendant of Buatapu, brother of Potangotango, and as such she had a right to this land. Himiona te Hopu shifted the boundary of Ngatihuia from Moutere to Ngatokorua. Te Bangihouhia was the chief of the Ngatipariri who went to Oroua to live. Tanguru and Taueki also went to Oroua, but they went to their relatives, not to remain there. They returned here when Christianity was introduced. My ancestors remained at Te Namuiti. They did not go. Taueki went because his wife and children were taken prisoners. When Taueki and Tanguru returned to Horowhenua they remained here permanently. Ido not know whether Bangihouhia returned here or went direct to Bangitikei. He died and is buried at Bangitikei. I cannot say for certain whether Tanguru and Taueki returned here before or after peace was made by Taueki and Ngatiraukawa. Peace was first made at Karekare, but it was broken. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness: I have said that Te Keepa Bangihiwinui was my ariki, and that he was from Tireo and Te Biunga, the ancestors who owned this land. He derives his rights from these ancestors. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : My ancestor Potangotango took possession of this land. Ido not know that Pariri had any rights to Horowhenua. Her descendants have no rights from her. I know Bihipeti Nireaha. She is a descendant of Pariri. I remember the Court at Palmerston in 1886, when those who had no rights were placed by themselves. I did not object to Pariri then because I was not allowed to ; the Judge prevented me. I did not hear any one object to the descendants of Pariri receiving 105 acres each. Tokai was not a slave; she was a wahine rangatira. The rights of Himiona te Hopu should come to me, not to Paranihia Biwai; she has no occupation. I know Te Paki, a half-caste ; he should not be called Te Hunga. Pire and Tiaki are also half-Europeans. I know Hoani and Nahona. Ido not know that your clients have any ringakaha here. I have at Papaitonga, which was defended by my ancestors —Potangotango and Buatapu. I remember when this land was before the Court at Foxton in 1873. I suppose Kemp gave a whakapapa then, but I do not know. I cannot say why the land was not awarded to any particular ancestor. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I arrived here on the 24th instant, and went to Otaki to get a conductor. I did not see Bawiri at Otaki. I saw him in the train. I did not make up my story about Potangotango in the train.with Bawiri. I did not have a long conversation with Bawiri in Baraku's house on Friday. I asked him to take my case, and he refused. Potangotango, Buatapu, and Te Biunga

G.— 2a

94

either came here from Manawatu or were born here. Ido not know where Puakiteao married; perhaps at Manawatu, but he came here. Tireo was the eldest of my ancestors; then came Te Biunga. Ido not know what became of Tireo, whether he was killed or died a natural death. It is not true that Potangotango was ducked in an eel-weir ; that story is an invention. Papaitonga belonged to Te Biunga. Her children enclosed some of the Ngatipariri in a house there. Ido not know their names. The house did not belong to Ngatipariri; it belonged to Te Biunga. Ido not know what Ngatipariri were doing there. I merely heard they were there. Ido not know who were killed. I do not know how many children Tupatunui had. The Ngatipariri fled from Porirua to the mountains, driven away by Te Bauparaha. The Ngatihine went from here to Oroua ; they were descendants of Potangotango and the other ancestors who lived here. Pariri lived at Porirua, not at Waitawa. I think Te Hukui was Pariri's husband. Ido not know where he came from. Ido not know how old lam ; you may. Ido not remember Haowhenua or Te Kuititanga. I was very small when Bangitikei was sold. I remember my brothers dying here. I saw Konihi, Te Baorao, Tawhati-a-henga, Tawhati-a-Tumata, Himiona te Hopu, and Hanita Kowhai here when we were living here after Christianity. Wirihana, uncle of Wirihana Hunia, did not live here ; he was brought here ill to a tohunga, and died here. Pioka was here ; and many others of Muaupoko. I cannot remember them all. I married at Bangitikei, and my husband brought me back here. I have not lived here permanently since my marriage. My sister has. Hamuera and many other of the Oroua people told me that Bangihouhia lived at Oroua. lam sure that Ngariki would admit my right to this land, but she is being influenced against me by Te Bangimairehau. I did not hear Wirihana give his evidence in the Court of 1890 at Palmerston. Ido not know who was killed after peace was made at Karekare, but I heard it was broken. Mr. J. M. Fraser: Not present. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : Whanokirangi cultivated potatoes at Opiki. Her descendants cultivated there after her. I have cultivated there myself. I lived there about a month at a time, and then returned to my home at Bangitikei. I lived with my cousins at Opiki. I did not build a house for myself. My cousins kept my fires alight. It is Bangimairehau who is objecting to me. Ido not know that my relatives consider 105 acres sufficient for me. Ngurunguru is a cultivation. I have worked there with Konihi ma. I assisted them, but did not build a house. My claim to this land is from Potangotango through Whanokirangi. I worked at Patiki and Te Kawiu in the same way as I did at the other places. There were no houses there. My relations had a whare at Mairua. I stayed with them there. All Muaupoko were there. Kemp put us all in the list in 1873. He and Te Whatahoro also put in the Ngatikahungunu, and others who had no right. Kemp would not say that 105 acres was sufficient for me. He has always said that No. 11 belonged to the people, the residential Muaupoko. The Hamua should not come in. I was born at Bangitikei. My mother brought me here. I remember sale of Bangitikei. 1 was twelve or thirteen years of age then. My father died at Te Awahou. My mother survived him. She married again. She lived at Bangitikei with Hura. I lived there with them. Came here sometimes. I married at Bangitikei, and lived there with my husband. I have lived permanently at Bangitikei, but have come at intervals to see my relatives at Horowhenua. Be-examined by Wi Kiriwehi. Witness: There was no contest in the Court of 1886. Kemp conducted our case. That is why we did not object to Ngatipariri receiving 105 acres each. Paranihia Biwai is a near relative of Himiona Hopu, but not through the line from which this land is derived. Himiona got his right from Kaimaoa. Paranihia would have no right from Kaimaoa. Ngariki has never objected to me personally. I have never asked Ngariki whether he denied my rights. I am giving my evidence on behalf of all the descendants of Potangotango, not for myself alone. The land awarded to me in No. 3is hilly, and unfit for cultivation. I consider lam entitled to an interest in No. 11, where my ancestors and elders cultivated. To Assessor : I do not know whether there were any Ngatipariri living here when I was here. I was too young to know. The Muaupoko lived on the seaward side of the lake in my time, where they live now. The Muaupoko had no houses south of Hokio until lately. My sister Bamari had four children by Hopa te Piki. The Court adjourned till the 29th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 29th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Case of Ria Raikokiritia —continued. Wi Kiriwehi said he would call Hopa Akuhata, alias Te Piki, to give evidence for his client. Hopa te Piki sworn. Witness: I reside at Horowhenua. My hapu names are Ngatihine, Ngatipariri, and Ngaitamarangi. lam not skilled in genealogies. I heard Bia Bamuera giving genealogies yesterday, but I have forgotten them. [Genealogies given by Bia read to witness.] I believe that whakapapa to be correct. lam a descendant of Buatapu. I heard Bia Hamuera name certain cultivations of her ancestors and parents yesterday, She was right. I did not see Bia's parents living at

95

G.—2a

Pukearuhe permanently. They came here on visits, but lived permanently at Bangitikei. Ido not know that any of their children were born here. I do not remember Ngapuhou and Te Waewae, whom Bia says were her brothers. Ido not know that they are buried here. Bamari was my first wife. She was Bia's sister. I had five children by her; four of them are here, and one at Bangitikei. The four who are here now were born here. Bamari was a cousin of mine on our Muaupoko side, and on our Ngatiapa descent. Himiona te Hopu was a chief of Muaupoko and a teacher. Bia, Ngariki, and Ani Kanara are his nearest relatives, and would be entitled to his mere pounamu if he left any, and also to his lands. lam with the tribe in this case. The tribe object to Bia Hamuera as having no occupation. My wife is dead; her fires died with her. This is the case with all Muaupoko who have died. Himiona te Hopu's rights here would go to his relatives because he died and is buried at Horowhenua. It is different with Bamari; she died at Bangitikei. I have only admitted that I heard Bia Hamuera's evidence yesterday. I have not admitted her rights. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : All the Muaupoko in our lists (Fraser's clients) are ahika. I consider they all have rights by occupation from their ancestors down to themselves. I cannot say that Waata Muruahi has had permanent occupation. His occupation is recent. Baniera te Whata has not had continuous occupation. He has lived at Arapaoa for a time. Bora Potaka has not lived permanently at Horowhenua; she has lived at Wanganui. Te Bangimairehau has rights by permanent occupation. He was taken prisoner at Mahurangi, and was afterwards taken to Te Parapara, in the South Island, and lived there. I have heard that he also lived at Arapaoa. I admit the rights of Te Baraku Hunia to No. 11. She is a daughter of Hereora and Hunia, and has occupied Horowhenua permanently. Taueki, grandfather of Hereora, had substantial rights in Horowhenua. I have not heard that he went to Arapaoa. I have heard that Taueki made peace with Te Whatanui. I do not know the particulars, or why they made peace, but I have heard it talked about. Up to the time I was grown up the only Muaupoko kaingas I saw south of the Hokio Stream were Otaewa and Kouturoa. Bewiri, Whiumairangi, Hanita Kowhai, and Hoani Puihi had houses at Otaewa. Tamati Maunu and others lived at Kouturoa after peace-making. Bewiri Whiumairangi and Hanita Kowhai lived at Otaewa after peace was made, and after they returned from captivity. Tamati Maunu ma were not living under Te Whatanui at Kouturoa; they lived there in their own right, at their own kainga. I will not say that Tamati Maunu had rights north of Hokio. Let his descendants say whether he had or not. I do not know that Tamati Maunu lived south of Hokio, because Te Whatanui was the rangatira of that part. If Tamati had been a slave he would have lived with Te Whatanui. If Bihipeti says he did live with Whatanui that is his story ; I am giving mine. Te Whatanui first leased the land south of Hokio. I do not know why, except that he had the mana over it after his arrangement with Taueki. Wirihana Hunia was brought up at Bangitikei. He did not live here permanently. He lived here with Wiki for a time, and then returned to Bangitikei. Wiki was the wife of Bangirurupuni. He (Wirihana) had no cultivation at Horowhenua, nor had his father before him. I never saw him or heard of his preparing flax at Mairua. Ido not remember the date of his coining to Horowhenua first. He has been in the habit of coming here on visits. Te Paki Te Hunga was here when he was young. After he married he went to Turakina and lived there permanently. He lived with Iritana while at Horowhenua. He returned here from Turakina, and established himself at Takapukaiparoro. After about two or three years he went back to Turakina. It was since his marriage to his second wife that he lived at Takapukaiparoro. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : lam a descendant of the Buatapu, who had rights in this land. I cannot trace my descent. Tireo, Te Biunga, and Potangotango also had rights in Horowhenua. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I believe that all my hapus have rights in Horowhenua. I have heard of Ngaiteao hapu ; they have rights to No. 11 also. Ido not know how the name Ngatihine is derived. Ngatipariri got their name from Pariri. I have heard Hamua mentioned as a hapu among MuauDoko ; heard it when I was quite young—l and others of Muaupoko —viz., Baraku and Makere are Hamua. I have heard of Te Bongopatahi. I have heard some say that she had rights here and others that she had not. Her descendants have rights by occupation, in my opinion. Paranihia Biwai is one of the nearest relatives of Himiona te Hopu. The share of Pirihira te Bau, sister of Himiona te Hopu, was awarded to Paranihia. I may have been wrong in saying that Bia was entitled to the interests of Himiona te Hopu ; Ido not know. Let Himiona's relatives settle it. I claim rights in the whole of No. 11, outside of the reserves set apart for the descendants of Whatanui. Te Whatanui's mana would not give him a right to the whole of the land, only to the portions given to him. All Muaupoko disputed Te Whatanui's mana. Taitoko, Bewiri Whiumairangi, Noa te Whata, Te Herewini, Matene Pakauwera, Tamati Maunu, Hanita Kowhai, and others took the leading part in disputing Te Whatanui's mana. They insisted on its being confined to the portion given to Whatanui by Taueki. Te Whatanui's mana was not.completely suppressed until the Court of 1873. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I was not here when Christianity was introduced. I was at Arapaoa. Was born there. When I arrived here the people had accepted Christianity. This was the year after Te Whatanui the elder died—about 1845 or 1846. I have lived at Horowhenua ever since, except for about two years at Bangitikei, and a short time at Wanganui. Himiona te Hopu was the teacher here when I first came. His was the only church here at that time. Te Paiaka and Te Tahuri

G.—2a

96

had taken Whatanui's place. Land south of Hokio had not been leased. Te Whatanui Tutaki leased it after their death. Paiaka and Tahuri died about three years after I came. I cannot remember date of Whatanui Tutaki's first lease. Up to time of lease Muaupoko did not work eelpas in Hokio Stream. The stream had all gone to Whatanui. Some of the Muaupoko objected to the lease. Himiona te Hopu was one who objected. Maru, Bewiri Whiumairangi, Noa te Whata, Te Baorao, Hanita Kowhai, Te Bangirurupuni, Tamati Maunu, Hetariki Takapo, Pioka, and others also objected. The lease was to Hector McDonald. The objection of Muaupoko had no effect. McDonald took possession of the land. There was a meeting at Piriatawa, when Muaupoko objected to the lease. Whatanui was present; so was I. McDonald, sen., was also present. Himiona te Hopu was alive at that time; he is buried at Horowhenua. Date of his death is on his headstone. I remember Himiona te Hopu urging that part of rent for land leased south of Hokio should be paid to Muaupoko. Whatanui would not agree. The Muaupoko then killed some of McDonald's cattle, and Te Whatanui agreed to share the rent with Muaupoko. A lease of the land north of Hokio was then made to McDonald. Whatanui was alone in lease for south side. Muaupoko gave lease of north side. Ido not know whether Whatanui joined in that lease. The first lease of north side was given by Muaupoko alone without Whatanui. Ido not know whether Whatanui's name was in the second lease for north side. In consequence of Whatanui's refusing to share rent for south side with Muaupoko, they leased the north side by arrangement with Whatanui. The lease for south side was then agreed to. The Muaupoko alone drew the rent for the north side for the second lease. Te Whatanui drew the whole of the rent for the land south of Hokio after the arrangement with Muaupoko. No one interfered with him. Te Kupe was erected because Te Whatanui shifted his boundary to Tau-o-te-ruru, not because Te Whatanui drew the rents for land south of Hokio. At Te Kupe meeting some of those who had not taken part in the arrangement between Whatanui and Muaupoko objected to Whatanui's receiving the rents south of Hokio—l mean the new-comers. Some objected in their hearts to Whatanui receiving rent for land north of Hokio. They objected publicly. Kawana Hunia was the new-comer at Te Kupe meeting. He objected to Whatanui receiving rents for land on both sides of the river. I was present at Kupe meeting. Kawana Hunia was not entirely successful in defeating Te Whatanui. The Ngatiraukawa insisted in retaining their boundary at Tau-o-te-ruru. I do not remember there being anything said about leases at Kupe. The leases had been settled previously. Te Kupe meeting was called to deal with boundary questions. I never heard that Hunia obtained the lease from Iritana and gave it to Muaupoko at Te Kupe meeting. If Himiona said he did that is his story. Muaupoko know nothing of it. I know that Hanita Kowhai, Tamati Maunu, Makere te Bou, and others received some of the rent for the land south of Hokio from Te Whatanui. I saw them receive it myself. I did not see it paid to them, but I saw them with the money. They went to McDonald and Whatanui for it, for the portion for Muaupoko; it was distributed amongst us (Te Iwinui). I did not hear them ask Te Whatanui for a part of the rent, but I saw the money. This was before the arrangement between Whatanui and Muaupoko. After the arrangement none of Muaupoko participated in rents for southern side. At Te Kupe meeting the Ngatiraukawa insisted on their boundary running from Tau-o-te-ruru to the ranges. Muaupoko were to be north of it. Muaupoko objected to it, and put it back to the place fixed by Taueki at Hokio Stream. This is what Kawana Hunia and Muaupoko wanted. Hunia and some of Muaupoko wanted it placed at Waiwiri. Noa, Ihaia Taueki, and many others wanted this. If Noa signed application to Court with Hokio as boundary I cannot help it. Ido not know that Hunia was the only man at Te Kupe meeting who was not satisfied with boundary at Hokio. Te Whatanui wanted it at Hokio. The boundaries were not settled at Kupe meeting. Hunia commenced to burn Ngatiraukawa houses, and was arrested for it. The action of Kawana Hunia and all Muaupoko showed a determination to get rid of Whatanui and all Ngatiraukawa off the land. I did not hear any of Muaupoko tell Kawana Hunia to go away, as he had nothing to do with it. Taueki gave Te Baumatangi and Te Mauru to Whatanui; he took possession of a much larger area, down as far as Bakauhamama, without the consent of Taueki. Kawana Hunia and all Muaupoko treated Whatanui as a trespasser outside of Baumatangi. It was not Kawana Hunia alone who did so. All Muaupoko did, and were justified in doing so, when they were strong enough. While they were weak they had to submit. They acquired strength themselves. Kemp assisted them even when he was away at the wars; he supported us. The reason we did not interfere with Whatanui before was because of Taueki's promise. [Horowhenua Commission, page 272, questions 168 to 175, read.] It was Te Keepa who proposed the building of Te Kupe and the calling of the meeting. He proposed that a house should be built and a meeting called. He had the tribes called together, but he was away at the war at the time of the meeting, and could not attend. The Muaupoko and Hunia invited tribes to attend in Kemp's absence. All the chiefs of Muaupoko issued the invitations. I was at the Court of 1873. Ido not know why Kemp made out that Hunia was a great man then, if he did so. I did not see Wirihana Hunia brought from Bangitikei, but I heard of it. I saw him when he arrived. His parents brought him to Te Bae-o-karaka, where his relatives lived. He was here when I went to Wanganui. When I returned he was still here. When I went to Bangitikei some time afterwards he was there. I cannot say how long Wirihana remained here after I returned from Wanganui. I lived some time at Bangitikei. My wife died there. I married again there. The sales of land at Bangitikei were over so far as I know. I think it was after Hanita Kowhai was killed that I went to Bangitikei. I had married my second wife at time of Kupe. I remember the award of 105 acres each to 106 persons in Horowhenua No. 3. Ido not know on what grounds all were made equal. Kemp arranged it. In recent years the rents for Horowhenua have been divided equally between the four hapus. I participated with Ngatihine. The money was distributed equally to the members of each hapu. I suppose the Ngatipariri have rights north of Hokio, as they drew some of the rents. The Court adjourned till the 30th instant.

97

G.—2a

Levin, Wednesday, 30th June, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Case of Ria Raikokiritia —continued. Hopa te Piki's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Witness : Hanita Kowhai was at Horowhenua when I first came here in 1846. Iritana Kowhai was also here, I cannot remember whether she was married. I did not see Ihaka Bangihouhia here when I arrived. He came here a long time afterwards. Ihaia Taueki and Hereora were here; so was Makere te Bou. Wirihana Tarewa was not born when I first came. Bewiri te Whiumairangi was at Ngapuhi. Te Bangirurupuni was here. Noa te Whata had returned here some time before I came. Motai Taueki, Paki te Hunga, Hoani Puihi, Kerehi Tomo, Tamati Maunu, and Matene Pakauwera were here. Peene Tikara was not here when I came; Hanita Kowhai and Iritana brought him here from Porirua some time after. Himiona Taiweherua was here. Hone Tupou was at Arapaoa; he did not come here for some time afterwards. Karaitiana Tarawahi, Ngariki te Baorao, and Matenga Tinotahi were here. Hetariki Takapou I did not see ; he did not come for a long time afterwards. Waata Muruahi was not here. Manihera te Bau was here. Herewini Baukautihia was here; he came here before me. Bihipeti Tamaki was born after I returned here. Waata Tohu was not here; I have never seen him living here. Kingi te Patu has lived here and at Wanganui; he died here; came here after Foxton Court. Mere Mionga I have never seen here, nor have I seen her daughters — Buihi Wuunu or Heni Haimona te Iki—or her grandchildren. Ema te Whango I have not seen here, or her children or grandchildren. Bangimairehau was not here when I first came; he came here before the great earthquake (1855). Henari Mahuika has never lived here. Hehe Whakaka I have not seen here. Batima Potau I have never seen here, or his son, Hamiora Potau. Waitere Kakiwa I never saw here. Matiaha Mokai was never here. Hori te Mawae was a Wanganui; I never saw him here. Aperahama te Bangiwetea, a Ngatiapa; never here. Te Miha-o-te-rangi and Te Whatahoro never lived here. Te Whatahoro was at Kupe meeting. Peeti te Aweawe was not here when I came; saw him here afterwards; he came about the Ngatokorua boundary. Hoani Meihana was not here when I came ; he came later, on a visit, and returned. Ani Kanara Tihore was not here. Long afterwards Kerehi brought her here. Turuki was here; she was Maru's wife ; died at Turakina; went there after her husband's death. Mere Karena was not here ; I never saw her here. Te Oti-te-hou was not here, but he came before Foxton Court. Harerota (a Chatham-islander): she was wife of Moihi te Whiu. I got 105 acres in No. 3. I claim with the tribe in No. 11. All the members of Ngatihine have a right in No. 11. All the members of Ngaiteao, Ngaitamarangi, and Ngatipariri have rights in No. 11 also. That is my opinion. Baraku Hunia is a Ngatihine. Ido not know why she objects to me. 1 have heard that Te Bongopatahi lived at Horowhenua, and that Kawainga and Pariri lived here also. Puakiteao and her children lived at Horowhenua. These ancestors owned the land at Ohau and Manawatu. Ido not know who owned the land south of Otaki or north of Manawatu. Mr. J. M. Fraser still detained at Wanganui. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I think all the members of the four hapus who have ahika should come into No. 11. Those who have no ahika should not be admitted. I believe Bangimairehau was here when I first came. Some of those who were not here when I came may have been here previously and gone away for a time. I understood that Mr. McDonald was referring to Whatanui Tutaki yesterday when he was asking me about Hunia's endeavour to dispossess Te Whatanui of the land. Kemp had arranged about building Kupe and inviting the tribes before he left for the war. Te Whatanui Tutaki died before the Kupe meeting (1871). He may have died in 1869. He died about two years or more before Te Kupe meeting, but his descendants were alive. When I said that some of the people at Kupe meeting objected to Whatanui drawing the rents I meant that they objected to the descendants of Whatanui receiving it. After Whatanui Tutaki died nobody drew rent for the south side. The Muaupoko took the rents for north side after Whatanui died, not the descendants of Whatanui. By my reply to McDonald yesterday I meant that Kawana Hunia objected to the boundary at Te Tau-o-te-ruru, not to the rent. I saw Kawana Hunia at Te Kupe meeting. I heard him speak about boundary at Tau-o-te-ruru. I did not hear him speak about the leases. I heard nothing at all at the Kupe meeting about the leases or the rents. I did not remain in Kupe during the whole meeting. I went in and out. I will not be certain how long meeting lasted—about three or four days. Ihaia Taueki, Noa te Whata, Hoani Puihi, Bangimairehau, and Kawana Hunia were the principal speakers. Others of Muaupoko spoke ; I did not. Ido not remember whether Wirihana Hunia was present; he did not speak. The chiefs 1 have just mentioned and others I have forgotten are those I referred to as having taken a prominent part in Kupe meeting. I do not admit Bia Hamuera's right to be admitted into No. 11. I object to her because her fires are out. Himiona te Hopu's fires went out because he died before the title to this land was investigated. I first saw Wirihana Hunia at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. He was about five years of age. I believe his parents brought him here. They came to a funeral. After the tangi was over they returned to Bangitikei and left Wirihana with Wiki and Te Bangirurupuni. I heard that he was left as a tamaiti whangai for Wiki and Te Bangirurupuni. He went back to Bangitikei for good when he was a big boy.

13— G. 2a.

G.— 2a

98

Be-examined by Wi Kiriwehi. Witness : Bia Hamuera has not lived here ; she has lived permanently at Bangitikei. That is why I say she has no ahika. My children relit their mother's fires. Himiona te Hopu cultivated at Mairua, Te Kawiu, and Te Ope-o-te-wai. I came here in 1846, but I have no knowledge of Bia's brothers having been born here. I saw Hura's and Bia's mother here long after I came; they returned to Bangitikei. Bia's brothers may have been born before I arrived at Horowhenua. I never heard of it. I did not see Bia taking part in discussion about Pirihira te Bau's share at Waitahi. I have heard that Bia told Manihera she objected to his having admitted Paranihia Biwai into Pirihira's share. To Assessor: No one kept my fires alight between 1820 and 1840. I lighted my own fire in 1846. I never thought that my rights were satisfied by the award made to me in No. 3. Wi Kiriwehi : That is my case. Sir W. Buller asked for an adjournment till to-morrow morning, as he had received a telegram from Mr. Fraser saying that he was still detained in Wanganui, and he (Sir W. Buller) did not care to commence the case for the tribe. The Court decided to fix the case for to-morrow morning, and requested Sir Walter Buller to commence then if Mr. Fraser had not arrived. Sir W. Buller agreed to commence for Mr. Fraser if the Court wished it. The Court adjourned till the Ist July.

Levin, Thursday, Ist July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case. Mr. J. M. Fraser still absent. Sir W. Buller asked the Court to note that he was merely acting for Mr. Fraser during his absence, and at the request of the Court. He would not claim anything from Muaupoko for his services. He would call Hoani Puihi. Hoani Puihi sworn. Witness : I belong to Muaupoko Tribe, Ngaiteao and Ngatikuratuauru hapus. I belong to other hapus, but these are the hapus in respect of which I claim Horowhenua. lam a chief of Ngatipariri, but I do not claim as a Ngatipariri, although I am a descendant of Kawainga, elder sister of Pariri. lam one of the registered owners of Horowhenua. I was present at Division Court at Palmerston in 1886. I attended the meetings of Muaupoko which preceded the proceedings in Court. I took a prominent part in the proceedings with Te Bangimairehau and other members of Muaupoko. I and Bangimairehau were the chief directors of the meetings. Ihaia Taueki, Te Kerehi Tomo, Makere, Bawinia Ihaia, Baniera te Whata, Te Kiritotara, and Hariata Tinotahi took an active part. Many others spoke. Meiha Keepa also took an active part. What he did was to give this land to the tribe, and the tribe handed it back to him as a trustee. Notwithstanding all that has taken place since, Kemp has always said that he held the land as trustee for the people. Before No. 11 was given to the people all other divisions of the block had been arranged for; this was the toenga. It was stated at the meetings that No. 11 was for the permanent residents of the tribe. This was explained by Kemp at the time and understood by the people. All the iwi agreed; there were no dissentient voices. I understood at the time that by ahika was meant those who had continuous occupation from former times down to the present, not outsiders. There was something said about the Horowhenua Lake at the meetings of 1886. It was mentioned by our committee and Major Kemp also. The committee and Kemp agreed that No. 11 and its waters were for the people. It was agreed" that the people should dwell round their lake. The people attached great value to the lake as a source of food-supply. It is our butcher's shop, and is our parent. Kemp and the people wished the door of the butcher's shop opened for the people. The people have always made use of the lake. We obtain food from it now. All the ahika have a right to the tribal reserve. Whatever distribution is made of it, all the ahika tuturu should have right of access to the lake. When Kemp gave this land to the people there were no hapu distinctions ; it was for the whole of the people who had ahika. I was born at Otaki. Went south to Arapaoa. Came back before Kuititanga. I was taken prisoner with my mother in the South Island and brought to this Island. My elder brother and Tanguru brought me to Horowhenua when I was too young to walk far. I was here when Treaty of Waitangi came. Lived here permanently. Went about to other places, but always returned to Horowhenua. I lived with my brother Amorangi at Waipata Pa, in a house called Pepara. I grew up and married at Horowhenua. I married Hiria, cousin of Bangirurupuni, and had children by her. My children were born here —ten of them. Eight died, and are buried at Horowhenua. My mother's name was Whakahinga ; she lived and died at Horowhenua. I married a second wife—Hariata Tinotahi, a woman of high rank at Ngatipariri. I came to Horowhenua before Treaty of Waitangi, and have lived here ever since. I therefore claim as an ahika as well as by ancestry. I can give my descent from—

99

a.—2a

Te Uira = Wairoto I I I Te Mou = Puakiteao * Haupo I i Tireo =s Nohokino Te Riunga I I Kuratuauru = Rangihuanoa Te Kapuwai Ruatapu = Rangitutea I Te Marunga Ruhina Whakahinga-i-te-rangi Tanguru I I Hoani Puihi Kemp * Haupo = Ngarue. Witness traced descent from this ancestor and from Kawainga. I cannot say that I have any right to this land from Kawainga. She lived at Otaki and Waikanae, but her descendants returned here to the descendants of Pariri and Te Bongo. They are still here —I mean Henare Paraki or Hanuhanu, and Bangirurupuni. When my brother Amorangi's child was born at Waipata he went to Wanganui, leaving his wife and child behind him. As he returned a Ngatiraukawa taua met him. It is supposed they killed him, as he has not been seen since. His son, Te Iho-o-te-rangi, grew up and died at Waipata. His bones are in a hollow ratatree there. I know Akuira Takapo ; he was born and grew up and died here. He was an ahika. Bihipeti Tamaki his successor. Hetariki Takapo was born and grew up here; I sent him away for committing adultery : ahika. Ido not know whether Akuira Takapo died before or after 1886. Ani Marakaia was not an ahika ; she does not belong here; has no nouses or cultivation on the block ; she belongs to Wairarapa. Ani Kanara te Whata is an ahika. Ani Kanara Tihore Ido not admit is an ahika. Aperahana te Bangiwetea is a Ngatiapa; no occupation. Arihia Toitoi: No occupation. Mionga had rights, but she married a Ngatiapa; none of her children have lived here. Arikihanara is dead ; his mother is an ahika, but he was born at Wanganui, and never lived here. Hakihaki te Wuunu is a Ngatiapa; no occupation. Hamiora Potau :No occupation, but is related to us. Te Hapimana Tohu is an ahika. Harata te Koeti is a Ngatikahungunu; no occupation. Harirota is a Chatham Island woman ; no right. Hariata Tinotahi is an ahika. Haruru-ki-te-Bangi :No occupation, but mother is an ahika. Hehe Whakaka is a Ngaitahu ; no occupation. Henare Hanuhanu is an ahika. Henare Mahuika is a Ngaitahu; no occupation. Heni Haimona-te-iki: Same position as Arihia Toitoi; no occupation ; belongs to Turakina. Heni Wairangi is an ahika; she is buried here. Hera Tupou is an ahika. Herariki Kawana Hunia belongs to Bangitikei; no occupation here. Hereora is an ahika. Herewini Bakautihia is an ahika; lived and died here. Heta Tamakatea, Heta te Whata, Hetariki Matao, Himiona Kowhai, and Himiona Taiweherua are all ahikas. Hira te Bangitakoru is not an ahika; belongs to Bangitikei and Turakina. Hiria Amorangi is an ahika. Hiroti te Iki :No occupation ; belongs to Bangitikei. Hoani Meihana : Lived here a short time ; he is not an ahika ; came as a visitor, and returned. Hoana Puihi is an ahika. Hoone Tupou came here from Arapaoa long after us. I consider him an ahika. Hopa Heremaia and Hopa te Piki are ahikas. Hore te Mawae is not an ahika; he is a Wanganui. Hori Muruahi is not an ahika ; he has been here as a visitor, and returned to Parihaka. Hori te Pa first lived at Manawatu; he came here when Pipiriki Pa was built, and has lived here ever since; he is an ahika. Horapapera Atirangi is not an ahika. Te Hutana Whakaka is not an ahika. Ema te Whango came from Arapaoa when Christianity was introduced; went to Bangitikei ; children born there ; died here ; an ahika. Emeri Ngawhakawa is an ahika. Eparaima te Paki, son of Te Paki, is not an ahika; never lived here. Ihaia Taueki is an ahika. Ihaka te Bangihouhia is an ahika; lived and died here. Inia Tamarake was born here; went with his mother to Turakina and lived and died there ; not an ahika. Irihapeti Ihaia is not an ahika ; belongs to Wairarapa. Iritana Kowhai is an ahika. Karaitiana te Korou is not an ahika : belongs to Wairarapa. Karaitiana Tarawahi is an ahika. Karena Taiawhio is not an ahika. Kawana Hunia-te-hakeke is not an ahika; no cultivation or houses; used to come as a visitor to attend meetings and discuss matters. Keepa te Bangihiwinui is an ahika ; lived here with his father till he grew up, and then went to Wanganui to live. Kerehi Mitiwaha, Kingi te Patu, Kingi Puihi, Motai Taueki, Matene Pakauwera, and Matenga Tinotahi are all ahikas. Manihera te Bau, husband of Pirihira Arahura, lived here till his wife died, and then returned to his own people at Otaki. His wife's share was awarded to him. I do not consider he has any right. Maaka Ngarongaro, Mananui Tawhai is an ahika. Matiaha Mokai is not an ahika ; belongs to Wairarapa. Marakaia Tawaroa is not an ahika ; lives at Wairarapa. Mihi te Bina Kawana is not an ahika ; belongs to Bangitikei. Makere te Bou, Maata Hinekirangi, Merehira te Marika, and Mereana Matao are all ahikas. Mere Mionga is not an ahika, but good ancestral right. Maata te Whango is an ahika. M. K. te Manaotawhaki is not an ahika ; lives at Turakina. Mere Hira Tohu lived here at one time as a visitor ; not an ahika. Merehira Waipapa is not an ahika ; belongs to Wairarapa. Meretene Whakaewa is not an ahika. Matina Tamaiwhakakitea is not an ahika ; lives at Wairarapa. Matiria Karaitiana and Miriama Piripi are not ahikas. Noa te Whata, Ngariki te Baorao, and Noa Tawhati are ahikas. Ngahuia Tirae is not an ahika. Oriwia Mutiwaha is an ahika. Paki te Hunga came here as a child, and lived with us ; he went away to Wairarapa, and from there to Bangitikei; he married and lived there ; children born there ; wife died there; married second wife ; came back here ; put up a fence at Takapukaiparoro; remained here one year; returned to Manawatu ; lived there permanently. He is not an ahika, in my opinion. Pene Tikara, Pire Tikara,

G.—2a

100

and Petera te Ha are ahikas. Porana Muruahi is not an ahika. Peeti te Aweawe: Bight by ancestry, and has rendered services in connection with the land ; not an ahika. Pirihira te Bau, Pirihira te Whata, Paranihia Biwai, Pete Kohu, Pete te Uku, Pirihira Hautapu, Bewiri te Whiumairangi, Bangirurupuni, Baniera te Whata, Biwai te Amo, and Euka Hanuhunu are ahikas. Bangipo Hoani is not an ahika; lives at Bangitikei and Wanganui. Buahoata is not an ahika; belongs to Turakina. Bihari Tarakihi came from Arapaoa to Bangitikei; married Ema Hinehine; children born there; came here to live permanently; died here: an ahika, in my opinion. Bangimairehau came back from Ngatiawa; lived here for a time ; went away ; returned again ; went to Manawatu; came back ; married Makere ; lived here ever since :an ahika. Batima Potau is not an ahika; lives at Otaki. Buta te Kiri and Bia Bona Taueki are ahikas. Bora Korako, sister of Kemp, lived here with her father till she grew up. Married Hakaraia Korako, of Wanganui: an ahika, because she lived here when young. Bihipeti Tamaki was horn here ; her parents lived here permanently, at Te Bae-o-te-karaka; she married here ; some time after marriage went to Wairarapa to live. I consider she is an ahika. Bawinia Matao was born here; she was an ahika. Boreta Tawhai married a Ngatikahungunu :an ahika. Buihi Wuunu has ancestral right; has never lived here permanently ;is not an ahika. Bora Tohu is not an ahika ;no houses or cultivations here. Bia te Baikokiritia has ancestral right; has often come here to bring presents to her relatives; contributed towards expenses in connection with this land; I consider she ranks as an ahika. Bakera Potaka : Have never seen her living or cultivating here ; not an ahika. Tamati Maunu lived, died, and buried here :an ahika. Tahana Muruahi is not an ahika; lives at Parihaka; never lived here. Tamati Muruahi is not an ahika; lived and died at Parihaka. Taare Matai and Taare Hereora are ahikas. Tiaki Tikara lived at Bangitikei for a time, then returned here ; died here :an ahika. Teoti te Hou is an ahika. Tamati Taopuku lived at Bangitikei for many years ; came here and married Mereana Matao; lived here for some years; died here: not an ahika. Topi Kotuku is not an ahika. Tiripa Taueki is an ahika. Turuki was a Ngatiapa; married a Muaupoko, who died ; she married again; I forget whether she died here or at Bangitikei: not an ahika ; was attracted here by her husbands. Unaiki Taueki, Wirihana Tarewa, and Winara te Baorao are ahikas. Wirihana Paeroa came here with Hunia when Taueki died. Bangirurupuni and his wife kept him and brought him up; he returned to Bangitikei; came back occasionally on visits : not an ahika; has only lived here permanently since Boyal Commission sat. Warena Hunia is not an ahika. Waata Muruahi has lived here permanently for some' years; he married a woman of the place ; is entitled to be considered an ahika. Wiremu Matakatea, son of Kiritotara; his father was a Taranaki; lived here permanently for years; I consider he is an ahika. Waata Tamatea has ancestral rights; no house or cultivations here ; have seen him visiting here for short periods; lives permanently at Tutaekara; I cannot say that he is ahika; leave him to Kemp. Watarawi te Hau is a half-caste child of Ema Hinehine; lived and died at Bangitikei; not an ahika. Waitere Kakiwa has ancestral right; no occupation; not an ahika. Whatahoro took prominent part in putting this land through Court; has not lived here ; not an ahika. Wiki Keepa, daughter of Meiha Keepa, has not lived here; not an ahika. Wiki Hanita is an ahika. Wi Waaka is not an ahika. Te Ahuru Porotene, son of Hereora, has lived as a European ;no ahika. Amorangi Bihara, my nephew, has ahika. Ani Patene, aunt of Bihipeti, brought up here; married Ngatuere; lived in Wairarapa for many years; has always interested herself in the land; she and Ngatuere had a house here; has ahika. Hori Wirihana, Heni Kuku, Harirota Taare, Hana Bata, and Hariata Ngamare (daughter of Hone) are ahikas. Hapeta Taueki, Hetariki Matao (see under Hetariki Tekapo,'' on previous page), Hoani Nahona (son of Wiki Pua and Nahona, a Ngatiapa), Hema Henare, Hanita Henare, Haare Taueki, Heta Noa, Kahukore Hurinui, Kaiwhare Bakuraku, and Te Kiri Hopa are ahikas. Te Meihana Toupou has only recently come here; I fetched him from the South Island; not an ahika. Mii Maunu, Miriama Matakatea, and Mohi Bakuraku are ahikas. Meri Nireaha, daughter of Bihipeti Nireaha; born at Tutaekara ; never lived here ; not an ahika. Norenore te Kerehi, Ngahuia Heta, and Nati Amorangi are ahikas. Ngahuria Eruera, daughter of Te Paki; no ahika. Oriwia Maiangi married Bopata Hurumutu; lived here a short time; went to Wanganui; not an ahika. Pane Korama, a Ngaitahu; came here as a slave to Ngatiraukawa; no right; not an ahika. Pere Korama, born at Manawatu ; mother never lived here ; he has lived here at times; not an ahika. Pehira Tuwharetoa: Half Muaupoko half Ngatituwharetoa; not ahika; lives at Wanganui and other places. Parahi Beihana is an ahika. Pirihera Nireaha: Same position as Mere Nireaha; no ahika. Baraku Hunia is an ahika. Bawea Taraua is not an ahika; lives permanently at Bangitikei. Biria Peene, Baniera Matakatea, Bewi Wirihana, Bawinia Ihaia, Bahira Wirihana, Bipeka Winara, Boka Hanita, and Tuhi Hori are ahikas. Taitoko-ke-te-uru-o-tu, son-in-law of mine ; lived here ; I sent him away ; took his wife from him ; not an ahika. Tapita Himiona, Wiki Pua, Warena te Kerehi, and Wiremu te Pae are ahikas. In my opinion those I have said are ahika, and those only, are entitled to No. 11. This would be in accordance with the conditions under which Kemp gave the land back to the tribe. I am a man of consequence in my tribe. I think all those whose rights I have admitted should have equal shares, without reference to rank or sex. I think lam expressing the wish of all the beneficiaries in saying that their shares should be equal. I am aware that a map has been prepared by direction of Court showing the different kaingas on the block. I think there should be no apportionment of the kaingas. The lake should be reserved for the people, and all should have access to it. The residue of the land should, in my opinion, be divided equally. The Court said it proposed to cut up the kaingas into sections. Those whose sections did not abut on the lake would be provided with roads. It was intended to reserve a road round margin of lake. Witness : I quite agree with the proposal. I think a road 50 links wide round the lake would be sufficient; if any greater width it would interfere with houses and cultivations on margin of lake. My parents and myself cultivated on margin of lake at end of Queen Street. Tirotiro ; Another

101

G.—2a

cultivation of mine (included in township). Te Kawiu : Cultivation of my parents and mine. Te Watutua : A cultivation ; I worked there with others. Te Whare-o-Tauira : I and Tanguru cultivated there. Poumaru: Cultivation of mine. Toi te Hiha: Cultivation of mine; all the tribe cultivated there also. My plantation was beyond the church. Pipiriki: Cultivation used by Te iwi katoa. Otaewa : Cultivation of mine ; grow corn, potatoes, melons, and fruit there. Kouturoa : Cultivation na matou katoa. Paenoa : A large cultivation used by all. There are many other cultivations. I have no eel-weirs in Hokio Stream. There is a post in the stream called Te Bae-o-temou ; it was placed there by the ancestors, so that the descendants should know the land was theirs. I have no special pas, but have the right to fish in any part of the lake ; the pas in the stream belong to others. I assisted in building Pipiriki Pa ; all the tribe took part. Took an active part in arranging lease to McDonald. Gave evidence before Boyal Commission as to distribution of rents, &c. I consider that in giving the evidence I have given to-day lam expressing the feelings of the people. Cross-examined by Wiremu Kiriwehi. Witness : Turuki has no ahika; she had two husbands, both of Muaupoko; they cultivated at the places I have named ; she married Maru after death of Whatanui. At time of Kupe she was living with Heremaia. The latter died shortly after Kupe meeting. After his death Turuki worked with Ngariki and Winara till she died, Ido not know who put Turuki's name in the 1873 list. Bangimairehau and Te Whatahoro wrote out the list. Ido not know whether Kemp assisted them. Turuki did not live many years at Horowhenua; she had no ancestral right. Ido not know that it was because Te Bangimairehau considered she had a right that he put her name in. I think her name was included as many others were who had no right. She has had 105 acres, and that is sufficient for her. She should not share in No. 11. So far as I know, she is not a descendant of the ancestors I say have rights to this land. She is buried at Horowhenua. She lived longer at Horowhenua than Waata Muruahi has, but the latter has ancestral right, and his relatives kept his fires alight. We disputed Turuki's rights in the Courts of 1886,1890, and 1891. Many of those who had rights wore omitted in 1873, while many who had no rights were included. The Court adjourned till the 2nd instant.

Levin, Feiday, 2nd July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Mr. J. M. Fraser present, and resumed conduct of case. Hoani Puihi's cross-examination by Wi Kiriwehi continued. Witness : Turuki lived here on her husband's rights. She lit her husband's fires. When her husband died she went to her own home. She was awarded some land on the hills by consent of the people. There were no cultivations on the land awarded to her. The part she cultivated is mine—the tribe's. The people who went to Arapaoa and returned to live permanently on this land have rights by occupation. Those who did not return on to the land have no right. I have not heard that Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura have rights in Horowhenua; they belong to Poroutawhao and Manawatu. This land belongs to Muaupoko, who reside upon it. All the people whose rights I have admitted have occupied No. 11. I have occupied at Mahoenui and Takapukaiparoro, but our principal kaingas are on the lake. I have rights to the Waiwiri side of No. 11 from my ancestors, but I did not occupy that locality till after 1873. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I gave evidence yesterday on behalf of all the resident Muaupoko. Te Uira is the ancestor from whom the right to this land is derived. The Ngatipariri, whose rights by occupation I admitted, are descendants of that ancestor. I do not know that Te Bangihouhia is descended from Te Uira; his descendants will know. I cannot say whether Pene Tikara, Pire Tikara, or Hana Bata are descendants of Te Uira; let them speak for themselves. Tamati Maunu's representatives can say whether he came from Te Uira; I cannot. I say the same with regard to Ema te Whango and others of Ngatipariri. I will leave it to Hariata to say what Akuira Takapo's rights to this land are. Hariata Tinotahi is a descendant of Te Uira; that is her right to the land. I was correct in saying that Heni Wairangi occupied this land. She is buried here. Was here when Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Ido not know that she was living at Ohau at that time. I saw her living here. Ido not know that she was captured at Papaitonga by Taimona when Paipai ma were killed. Herewini te Bakautihia came here from Arapaoa, went on to Bangitikei, returned here, and lived permanently till his death. I consider his residence gave him rights by occupation. He is buried here. Tawhati-a-Tumata and other relatives kept his fires alight during his absence. Tanguru remained here while we were away, and it may be said that he kept our fires alight, including those of his grandchildren, Haruru and Arikihanara. Hetariki Takapo, father of Bihipeti, acquired rights to the land, I consider, through his wives and children, long occupation, and assisting to advance Christianity. Turuki was in a different position; she had no children, nor did she do anything for the land. Ido not remember when Turuki and Maru married. I believe Maru died after second erection of Tainui. Pehira Tuwharetoa grew up here; went to Wanganui, married, and has lived there ever since; that

a.—2a

102

is why I say he has no ahika. His cultivations have become ours now. Mata Huikirangi has ahika. I said so yesterday (see Mata Hinekirangi, vol. 34, page 369). Hiria Amorangi is a descendant of Kawainga, whose uri I said yesterday returned here to the uri of Pariri. She derives her right from Te Eangirurupuni and myself. Kawainga had no right to this land. She went south. Her sisters remained here. Some of the descendants of Kawainga returned and intermarried with the descendants of Pariri and Te Eongopatahi, both of whom lived on this land. My occupation of this land commenced when I came here from the South Island, but my elders and parents had occupied before me. I cannot give date of my return from South Island, but I came to Horowhenua before Te Kuititanga. The Maoris at Waikanae had given up cannibalism before Te Kuititanga, and some of them had embraced Christianity. I was born at Otaki. I walked part of way from Wainui to Horowhenua. I was carried when tired. I was not old enough to keep up with adults on a journey. I do not know whether it was before or after Karekare that we went to the South Island, or what ope we went with, or who captured us, or where we were captured; perhaps at Paturau. I do not know who of Muaupoko were living at Otaki before Kuititanga and Haowhenua. I do not know why my parents went to the South Island. It may have been because they feared attack. I have heard it said that we went with Kotuku. Te Kotuku bade farewell to the people of Muaupoko generally, not to any particular chief. I have not heard that any one endeavoured to dissuade Kotuku from going. I have not heard that Taueki did so. I have heard that Taueki said, " Haere etc koura mawhitiwhiti," &c. I admit that it was through Taueki and others remaining on the land that it was retained. I contend that Hopa te Piki has ahika because he has lived here permanently since he returned, and will probably be buried here. Ihaka te Eangihouhia lived here (No. 11) permanently. Died here. That is ahika. Let his successor say how he derived his right. He married a Ngatiawa woman and lived with Ngatiawa for a time, but eventually brought his wife here. Pene Tikara returned here long after Christianity was introduced. He married daughter of Hanita Kowhai, and has lived here permanently. His children were born here. I leave it to the Court to say whether Pene Tikara should have equal shares with those who have had longer occupation. I am willing that all should be equal, but 1 would not approve of my house and cultivations being given to him. Ido not remember when Peti Kohu came back [1856], but she has lived here permanently ever since she returned. I am agreeable to her having equal shares with me. Peti Dku: Ahika, elder relative of mine. She lived with Ngatitoa for years, but I kept her fires alight. She should have equal shares with the others. She returned here from Poroutawhao before 1873. Eangirurupuni lived with Wi Parata's people for years, but his relatives kept his fires alight while he was away. He returned here, died, and is buried here. I have heard that he was a dependent of Eangihiroa, but he was not captured in war. Eaniera te Whata : I gave his history yesterday. Noa and others kept his fires alight while he was away. He is living here now. Has ahika. Tawhati-a-Tumata, Te Atua, Pitawa, and many others kept Noa's fires alight during our absence in the South Island. Eihari Tarakihi went from Arapaoa to Eangitikei. Came here after Court of 1873. We kept his fires alight. I consider he has ahika. Died here. Left his children on the land. Eangimairehau [witness repeats what he stated yesterday] :He has ahika, in my opinion. I do not know how long he lived at Parapara. He returned here about 1873. Ido not know whether Tamati Maunu was ever taken prisoner; he lived at Kouturoa, not under the mana of Te Whatanui. He and the iwi lived in independence. He knew the land was his. His descendants can say how he derived his right. All the Mawhitiwhiti who have returned on to the land have recovered their rights. I say they have rights in No. 11 from Ngatokorua to Waiwiri. These rights were confirmed to them by the law in 1873. It is not a fact that before the Court of 1873 the Muaupoko possessions were confined between Hokio and Ngatokorua ; they extended further south than Hokio. We gained from Waiwiri to Tau-o-te-ruru by the action of the law in 1873. There were disputes about Ngatokorua before 1873. It was not Peeti and Ngatuere who fixed the boundary at Ngatokorua; it was the law that fixed it, in 1873. There was nothing decisive done about the boundary until the Court settled it in 1873. We came to an arrangement about it with Ngatihuia, but that arrangement was afterwards disregarded, and an attempt was made to bring the boundary further this way. Posts were put in, and I burnt one of them. I admit that the boundary was at one time fixed by agreement at Hangaingai, but that agreement was broken. The land south of Hokio was recovered in 1873 by Taitoko and the Iwinui and other chiefs—Hunia and others. They brought it under the law, and it was awarded to us. Ido not know who made the application for investigation of title to land south of Hokio. [Names read out.] I never saw that application or I would have signed it. The persons who signed it are descendants of Te Uira. 1 do not know why Tamati Maunu did not sign the application as a descendant of Pariri: he may not have known the application was being made. Tamati Maunu was partly Ngatiapa ; he sometimes lived at Eangitikei and other places; he moved about after the manner of chiefs. Ido not know that he married his first wife at Eangitikei. He only had one wife that I know of. She lived here with him. Both died here. I do not know where Te Ea Hikurangi was born, or who her mother was; she was a daughter of Tamati Maunu, and married Te Marika here. Tamati Maunu did not live here because he married a woman of the place. He married Te Eau, but he had a right of his own. When we came from the South Island we lived at Wainui first, and then came on to Waipata. We lived some time at Wainui. Ido not know how long. Wi Perahama, Tawhati-a-henga, Marangaiururangi, and others were at Waipata when we arrived there. Taueki was at Namuiti. Tanguru, Te Matangi, and others were with him. Tawhati-a-Tumata was at Namuiti. All these were descendants of Te Uira. Paenoa was our first cultivation ; all the inhabitants of Waipata worked there and at Kouturoa. We cultivated together. There was no land specially set apart for us. After Christianity was introduced we made cultivations at other places—Te Kawiu, Te Hiha, Te Watutua, and others. The Muaupoko have attempted to disturb my occupation at Whare-o-Tauira. It was Tanguru's. When we went I worked there, and they broke down my fences, and we had a serious quarrel. It is unoccupied

G.—2a

103

now. It was Matene Pakauwera who attempted to eject me. He thought I was appropriating too much land. No one has cultivated there since. I do not remember date of dispute. It was long after we came. I went to Wanganui before I married ; stayed some time ; came back of my own accord. Went on a visit. It is true that Tanguru said Kemp was to remain with his relatives at Wanganui, and that I was to return here. I was at Palmerston in 1886 when the Court sat there. Attended some of the Muaupoko meetings there. Had to come away. When I returned the people had arranged most of the divisions of Horowhenua. It was then that Kemp gave this land back to the people, and we returned it to him to hold as trustee. I did not hear the people told before No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena that it was for them absolutely. It is only lately that I have heard that. At the time it was stated that the land was for the people. Warena has taken advantage of his legal position to claim the land for himself, but Kemp has always said that he held it as trustee. Wirihana Hunia did not tell me in 1886 that No. 11 was for Kemp and Warena alone. If he had told me so I would never have agreed to the land being awarded to them. I have heard that Te Biunga lived at Papaitonga. Her descendants are here now. I have never heard that her lands were at Tamaki. Ido not know whether Taueki was a Ngatikokopu ; his relatives would know. Potangotango and Buatapu had rights in this land from Te Uira and Temou. Their descendants who live here had rights also. Merehira Tohu has ancestral rights, but no occupation. She had no house or cultivation here. Has lived away from the land. Only been here on visits. AM mataotao. I never saw Taki, mother of Waata Tohu, living here. Ido not know that her eldest daughters were born here, but they may have been. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Ngatikuratuauru and Ngaiteao are my hapu names in respect of this land. My tribal name is Muaupoko. Temou and Puakiteao both had rights in this land. Tireo, Te Biunga, Potangotango, and Buatapu had equal rights to the Horowhenua Block. Their descendants have also equal rights. I have heard that Pariri a*nd Te Bongo lived on this land. I do not know by what right they lived here. I heard that Hikaotaota came from Ngatikahungunu to this place in search of a husband. She had no right here that I know of. I said yesterday that Ani Kanara Tihore had no ahika. She lived here about a year. Died here. lam still of opinion that she had not sufficient occupation to warrant her admission to No. 11. Ido not know what year she came. Te Kerehi will know. May have been 1859. Peeti te Aweawe took part in discussion about this land. He also assisted in settling boundary, but he lived at Manawatu, not here. I consider the 105 acres he has already received is sufficient to satisfy his claims. I admit that the defence of land gives the defender a good claim, but it must be followed by occupation. It is for the Court to consider the relative rights of Peeti te Aweawe and Kawana Hunia. Paranihia Biwai was born and brought up here. Went to Wairarapa, and married there. Her parents remained here, and she returned when her husband died. Has lived here ever since. I consider her entitled. Meretene Whakaewa has ancestral rights, but no occupation. Has never lived here. She came here to attend the runanga over a taonga found by Te Whatanui's people, and which she claimed. The runanga' decided against her, and she went back to Manawatu. Ahi Mataotao. Hoani Meihana took part in the raruraru over this land. He is a descendant of Tireo. I repeat that defence of land gives the defenders a good claim to it. The Court adjourned till the sth instant.

Levin, Monday, sth July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Hoani Puihi cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I said in my evidence-in-chief that No. 11 was set apart by the people for the resident Muaupoko in 1886. It was a verbal arrangement, and was confirmed by the Court in vesting the land in Kemp and Warena as trustees. We have no writing to show that No. 11 was intended for the tribe. We have had meetings about No. 11 since it has been before this Court. No other blocks were discussed. The discussions were confined to the question of occupation. It was suggested, when we heard that No. 11 was to come before the Court, that shares should be equal. This was agreed to by the people. Taueki's family did not say that they concurred. They have set up a case for themselves. All Muaupoko agreed except those who have separate cases—Bihipeti, Te Paki, and others. My rights are from ancestry and occupation. I object to those who have ancestral rights alone receiving equal shares with me. If there are any persons in the title who have occupied without ancestral right they should not receive equal shares with us. I would object to that. Ancestral right followed by permanent occupation is the strongest take to this land. I remember the Court of 1873; it awarded the land between Waingaio and Waiwiri to Muaupoko who had occupied. There was no ancestor mentioned in the judgment. Te Kupe was the ancestor set up. Maaka Ngorongoro has no right by occupation ; he never lived here. Petera te Ha has rights by occupation, but I do not consider he would keep Maaka Ngorongoro's fires alight. I have said that Paki te Hunga has no right by occupation. I remember when he came here with Hunia to burn the Ngatiraukawa houses. I do not know whether Ema was his wife then. It was at the time we were building Pipiriki Pa. Kemp was here also. Pirihira Nireaha, daughter of Bihipeti, has not lived here. Ngatuere Tawhao was living here until 1873. I

a.— 2a

104

remember Pirihira Nireaha living here with him for a time, but her residence here was not sufficient to give her right by occupation according to Maori custom. The Maori law was that children had rights in their parents' lands no matter how far away they lived. It is only since European law that it has been necessary to occupy in such cases in order to establish a right. Iritana and Te Paki are children of the same mother, but Paki's father was a European. When Te Paki first came here Hanita Kowhai sent him away for some reason. I brought him back, but he went away to Wairarapa and Bangitikei, and has not occupied this land excepting for a short time at Takapukaiparoro, and his living there was objected to. I do not know why. Hereora was married to her first husband here, and had by him Wi Hapihana, Noa Tawhati, and Unaiki. Her second husband was a Ngarauru. When we heard they were to be married Hanita and I objected. After this Kemp took Hereora to Wanganui, and she married a European. After his death she married Hunia, and had Baraku, at Bangitikei. She had several children by her European husband. The children of Hereora who reside here have rights through the occupation of Hereora; they are entitled to shares in their own right. Te Uira, Te Mou, Puakiteao, and Haupo are the ancestors I say had rights in this land. They derived their right from Kupe, through Te Aoroa. Let the descendants of Pariri and Te Bongo say whether those ancestors had rights to Horowhenua; Ido not know whether they had or not. Their mother came from the East Coast. When I gave my evidence in 1890 I was supporting Hunia. In 1874 Hunia suggested to a committee of chiefs that he should have control of Ngatipariri, and that Kemp should have the other hapus. He proposed to run a boundary through the block by the stream and call it Pariri. This was at Pipiriki. I opposed him at the time and supported him in 1890. The evidence lam giving now is the truth. The people did not know I was going to support Hunia in 1890, or that Hunia was going to take the course he did. It was Hunia who said that Pariri had a boundary. The people opposed it by preventing the erection of his fence. I did not hear any of the elders of Muaupoko say there was a boundary between Pariri and Te Bongo. [Vol. 13, page 235 :" I was first told by Tamati Maunu about this boundary," &c] I gave that evidence, but it was Kawana Hunia who first set up the boundary referred to there. Those mentioned in my evidence and many others heard him. The people all opposed it. lam the only one who supported the boundary. None of the tribe will say there was a boundary dividing this land. The matter was discussed at Pipiriki a long time ago— on two occasions. The people objected to it on both occasions. The State farm was sold fraudulently; it did not belong to Hunia. The money received by Baraku was really part of her mother's share. Her mother was one of the tribe. I think the amount paid to Baraku should be made a charge against the tribe. I believe the tribe will support me in this. lam willing to take my share of the burden if the other members of the tribe will do the same. I remember Wi Waaka and others coming here to give back their shares to Muaupoko. Muaupoko did not accept them at the time. It may have been in 1883. They repeated the offer in 1886. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I remember giving evidence on oath before Court of 1890. [Vol. 13, page 242 : "The land belonged to Taitoko, husband of Hikaotaota," &c] I remember saying that. [Vol. 13, page 242: " Taitoko was the ancestor through whom the three sisters claimed."] That is true. They got their right from Taitoko. I referred to Te Bongo, Kawainga, and Pariri. [Vol. 14, page 296 : " Kawainga went to Waikanae," &c] I gave that evidence. [Vol. 13, page 235: "I heard of the Pariri boundary," &c] I gave that evidence, but I repeat that the boundary originated with Hunia. [Vol 13, page 242 : "Te Bangihouhia Wereta and others told me about the Pariri boundary," &c] You told me to give that evidence. All the Muaupoko knew of the alleged boundary, but they did not agree that there was such a boundary. [Vol. 13, page 236 :" It was laid down by Te Bongo, Kawainga, and Pariri."] That is wrong. I said it was the boundary of Te Bongo and Pariri. [Vol. 13, page 236 : " Ngatipariri and Hamua were on south side," &c] I said Ngatipariri were on southern side of boundary. I did not say Hamua. [Vol. 13, page 244 : " The Pariri line was fixed before the raid of Te Bauparaha."] I did not hear of that boundary until after Te Bauparaha's time. I was concealing my own rights in that Court, and supporting Hunia's. [Vol. 14, page 303: "Before Bauparaha's time it extended to Ohau. I have heard this," &c. (Pariri boundary).] Ido not remember saying that. If it is in the Court book I suppose I did. What I did say was that Waiwiri was the southern boundary of Pariri's lands. [Vol. 14, pages 289 and 290 (repeats boundary).] I remember giving that evidence, but all Muaupoko, including Kemp, disputed my evidence. Kemp and I quarrelled about it. [Vol. 13, page 242 : " Puakiteao was an ancestor of Muaupoko. He has no right to this land."] I did not say that. I would not admit that my ancestor had no right. I said that Puakiteao had a right. In the Courts of 1890 and 1891 I was suppressing my own rights, and advocating those of the Hunias. [Vol. 13, page 243 :" I looked upon Kemp as a trustee," &c] Wirihana Hunia did not tell me to say that. [Vol. 14, page 296: " Ngatipariri take their name from that ancestor," &c] I admit saying that. [Vol 14, page 294 :" I first heard Kemp say in Court of 1890 that he had never heard Ngatipariri spoken of as a hapu," &c] I remember producing a book to Judge Trimble showing contributions of hapus towards expenses of Court of 1873. [Vol. 14, page 296 : "I heard it as a hapu name when I first came from Wainui to Horowhenua," &c] Kemp and all Muaupoko denied that Ngatipariri was known as a hapu. I was alone in saying that it was. You led me, and told me what to say. When we were before Parliament you, Donald Fraser, Stevens, and Wirihana Hunia urged me to say that No. 11 was not for the people, but for Kemp and Warena only. I refused, and came away from Wellington. I heard Wirihana and Himiona Kowhai give their whakapapa from Pariri. I cannot say whether they were correct or not. [Mr. McDonald reads some of the names.] I will not say whether they are Ngatipariri. [Vol. 13, page 240: "We were many years at Arapaoa," &c. " The Ngatipariri were living at Horowhenua," &c] I remember making those statements. I do not know whether Kotuku went to Arapaoa at

a.—2a,

105

same time as my people. The old people would know. [Vol. 13, page 239 : " Kawiu was a cultivation of Ngatipariri and Ngatirongo," &c] That is right. It is what I said. Those cultivations belonged to the whole tribe—all Muaupoko. [Vol. 13, page 235: " Bangihouhia was at Horowhenua at the time of Kuititanga," &c] That is true. He went to Bangitikei shortly afterwards, and died there. I meant Ihaka Bangihouhia. [Vol. 13, page 236 :" I remember Whatanui trying to sell part of the land," &c] [Bepeats in vol. 14, page 291.] That is correct. I remember saying it. I gave that evidence at your instigation. Ido not say that it was all false, but when I made a misstatement it was prompted by you. [Vol. 13, page 234 : " I saw the old people there—Taueki," &c] I remember saying that. [Vol. 13, page 240 :"I do not know where Bangihouhia was born. . . . I have not heard that he came to Horowhenua through fear of Bauparaha," &c] I said that Bangihouhia came to Horowhenua after killing Kiore and Te Hotoke through fear of Ngatiraukawa. I did not say he was not afraid. I heard that he was living at Otaki at the time. He killed Hotoke on the hills at Pukehou. Ido not know where he went from. I heard that Ihaka Bangihouhia was born at Waitawa. That was his place. You did not tell me to say so in 1893, but I know that Bangihouhia and Ihaka fled here from there. [Vol. 13, page 241: "Te Hakeke was at Bangitikei. He came to fetch Bangihouhia long after Treaty of Waitangi, before the Horokiwi fight," &c] It is true that Hunia fetched Bangihouhia away. He never returned. He was not taken away twice that I know of. [Vol. 13, page 241: "I saw Hanita, Biwai, Ihaka Pakeha, and others working at Te Makomako."] [Vol. 14, page 304: "Hunia was much respected by Muaupoko," &c] I said that. He was respected at one time, but not always. [Vol. 14, page 292 : " There was much trouble about the land before it passed the Court," &c] I said that, but I omitted to say that Kemp gave the first instructions, because you told me to. [Vol. 13, page 237 : " Kawana Hunia named the house after our ancestor Kupe."] I said so then, but it was the Muaupoko Tribe that named it. [Vol. 14, page 292 : " When house was built, Hunia wrote to all the tribes to assemble," &c] Hunia and the whole tribe invited the tribes to assemble. One man could not do it by himself. [Vol. 14, page 292 : " Kawana Hunia then said he would on no account allow Ngatiraukawa to lay down boundaries on his land," &c] That is all true. I seconded him. We were all of same opinion. [Vol. 14, page 291: " Hunia said Whatanui's name should not appear in Muaupoko lease," &c] The whole tribe said that. No one said at the time that Hunia had nothing to do with the leases. [Vol. 14, page 304 : " Had meeting of Kupe any result? —Yes, the taking-off of Ngatiraukawa mana."] I remember saying that. After that the Muaupoko opposed Hunia's boundary and his fence. [Vol. 13, page 235 :" I knew Kawana Hunia; he used to come frequently to Horowhenua," &c] I said that, but he only came as a visitor, and never cultivated himself. He used to go with the people to their work. [Vol. 13, page 237 : " Kawana Hunia went to Hector McDonald, and asked him to give him a portion of the rent," &c] It was Hanita and Wirihana Hunia who asked for the rent, not Hunia. [Vol. 13, page 241: " Kawana Hunia lived between Namuiti and Waipata. He lived on the land for a year," &c. (to bottom of page).] He only came as a visitor, and sometimes amused himself by doing some clearing with a small hatchet. [Vol. 14, page 289 : " Have seen Kawana Hunia there," &C. (to bottom of page).] I repeat that he used to go with the elders to work. [Vol. 14, page 291 (already quoted).] [Vol. 14, page 304 (re fencing).] Hunia first attempted to divide the land between the hapus. This was objected to. He then tried to erect the post at Waiwherowhero and call it Pariri. Muaupoko prevented this. Then he burnt the houses, and went away to Bangitikei, and left Muaupoko to resist Ngatiraukawa. We resisted them ourselves. I admit saying what lam reported to have said, but I was giving evidence in favour of Hunia, and glossing over everything that might tell against him. Before word was received from Hunia cattle had been killed by Muaupoko, but I did not say so in 1891 because I was magnifying Hunia's take. [Vol. 14, page 305: " Did you hear Kemp's evidence having instructed Muaupoko to kill these cattle?—l did hear it, but it was not correct," &c] I remember saying that. It was Muaupoko who commenced the killing. Kemp did give instructions, but I did not mention it, because it did not suit me. [Vol. 13, page 235 :" I remember Wirihana Paeroa. I saw his body," &c] I said that. I was following out your instructions. Wirihana Paeroa was taken ill at Bangitikei, and was being brought here to a tohunga when he died at Manawatu. He was not brought here because he was a chief. Nor was Wirihana Hunia brought here for that reason. [Vol. 14, page 289: "I remember Wirihana Maihi," &c] I said that. [Vol. 14, page 302: "False that Wirihana was being brought to a tohunga."] I said that. I was in opposition to the tribe at the time. The Court adjourned till the 6th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 6th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Hoani Puihi's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Witness: I objected to the sale of State farm by Warena. That was not the only reason why I changed front with regard to Hunia. In 1890 Wirihana instructed me to cultivate at Ta te Arero. I felled the bush there, and cleared the land as far down as Te Tii. After I had made the improvements I asked Wirihana to give me a title to the land. He refused, and others came

14— G. 2a.

G.—2a

106

and made use of my improvements. Hanita Henare built a house there. I asked Wirihana what he intended to do about it, and he put me off, so I knew he was acting unfairly to me. There are other reasons for my leaving the Hunia family. About the same time I asked him to give the residue of No. 11b, after sale of State farm, to the people. He declined to do so, and I knew that the people were being unjustly treated. These things were not done by Hunia himself, but by Wirihana Hunia, his representative. Hunia had no right to the State farm. I have already said so, and it is true. Another reason for my leaving the Hunias was that Wirihana wanted me to say before the Native Affairs Committee that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena only. He and his Europeans tried to persuade me to do this, but I refused. I did not see you there. You were not in Wellington, but you were one of those at the Court of 1890 who advised me to follow the same course. Another ground of complaint against Wirihana Hunia is that, after promising us some of the money he received from the State farm, he took £2,000 of it to Rangitikei, and did not give us any. He also asserted that he would only give what portions of the land he chose to the people. Another reason is that he stated that Amarumoari lived at Moutere, whereas his kainga was atTaikoria. In 1890 and 18911 was suppressing my own claims and supporting those of Hunia; now lam advocating my own rights, the real rights to the land. I suppressed the rights of the tribe in 1890 and 1891 in order that I might magnify Hunia's, and I succeeded in doing so. I gave evidence before the Horowhenua Royal Commission. The causes of complaint I have mentioned all happened before the Royal Commission sat. Others happened at the time of the Commission and after. All the Ngatipariri left Wirihana when I did ; they saw that he was acting in a manner that would injuriously affect their rights. I leave them to say what their rights are, lam now stating my own. [Horowhenua Commission, page 141, question 272 and reply, read.] I gave that reply. [Horowhenua Commission, page 141, question 276 and reply, read.] I remember giving that answer. I was the kaiwhakahaere for Ngatipariri. [Horowhenua Commission, page 141, question 284 and reply, read.] I gave that reply. [Horowhenua Commission, page 141, question 294 and reply, read.] That is correct. I was still supporting Wirihana Hunia's claims when I gave that evidence. [Horowhenua Commission, page 140, questions 258, 259, 260, and replies, read.] I admit making those replies. I did not understand why my name was left out after the assistance I had given Wirihana, seeing that I am a descendant of Kawainga, elder sister of Pariri. [Horowhenua Commission, page 140, question 261 and reply, read.] I admit that I said that. [Horowhenua Commission, page 144, questions 372 to 374 inclusive and replies, read.] That is true. I gave those replies. In reply to question 374 I meant that I was a descendant of Hikaotaota. I did not say I was a direct descendant of Pariri. [Horowhenua Commission, page 125, questions 282 and 283 and replies, read.] Those replies are correctly reported. [Horowhenua Commission, page 145, questions 409 to 415 inclusive and replies, read.] I admit that those replies are correctly reported. [Horowhenua Commission, page 145, question 416 and reply, read.] That reply is incorrect. I said " Yes," not " No." [Horowhenua Commission, page 145, question 417 and reply, read.] Ido not remember replying as reported. My reply is incorrectly given. I did not say that my father was a descendant of Pariri; he was not a descendant of Pariri. [Horowhenua Commission, page 127, question 355 and reply, read.] I admit having said that. I meant that it should be put back into No. 11. [Horowhenua Commission, page 129, questions 463 to 466 inclusive and replies, read.] I gave those replies. [Horowhenua Commission, page 143, question 345 and reply, read.] I admit giving that reply. I was angry with Muaupoko and Kemp at the time. [Horowhenua Commission, page 144, questions 392, 393, and replies, read.] I remember giving those replies. I claimed as a Ngatipariri before the Commission. I do not say now that Ngatipariri have no claim. I say that they must all say what their rights are. I claim as a Ngatipariri, Ngaiteao, and other hapus. I have set up Te Uira as my take now. Ngataahi set up Te Hukui. Let her prove her rights from Te Hukui. Ido not deny Te Hukui's rights. Te Uira was killed on this block ;he was murdered by Ngatikahungunu— by the people of Rangihikaka and Pariri. His death was avenged by the killing of Tokouru at Papaitonga. Ido not know where Pariri and Te Hukui were when Te Uira was killed. Ido not know the rights of Hukui and Pariri; let their descendants say what they are. Te Mou was not taken away when Te Uira was killed. [Repeats story about disguising sex.] The enemy wished to kill Te Mou, so that Te Uira should have no descendants. Te Mou grew up here, and married Puakiteao. Their children were born here. Some of their descendants went to Manawatu. Tireo was their first child. I claim from him. I know Hoani Meihana. Ido not know that he is a skilled genealogist. [Vol. Ig, page 70: " Tireo's land is from the landing-place to the west boundary."] Manawatu was one of Tireo's kainga tuturu. He died there. Hoani Meihana is descended from him, and has lived at Manawatu on those lands of Tireo. He has never lived on Tireo's lands here. I have heard it stated in this Court that Ngatiapa killed Tireo. Ruatapu and Potangotango were living here when Tireo was killed. They avenged his death. I cannot give particulars; others can. They attacked and defeated Ngaitai, a hapu of Ngatiapa. Haupo was a descendant of Kupe. He married Te Ngarue. They both had rights to the land. Ido not know why Kemp mentioned Te Ngarue only. Ido not know who Te Ngarue's father was, or whether she had any brothers or sisters. Haupo has never been mentioned in any previous Court that I know of. Te Ngarue's lands were at Horowhenua ; so were Haupo's and Te Uira's. They owned in common. I do not know where Te Koronga's lands were. I did not set up these ancestors before the Commission because Wirihana and I had one case. The Muaupoko were living independently of Te Whatanui on this land before Kupe and before the killing of the cattle. There was a boundary between Whatanui and Muaupoko at that time, but it was done away with. It was at Te Tau-o-te-ruru. The Muaupoko worked the eel-pas in Hokio Stream in Whatanui's time. Te Whatanui worked those at his kainga. The eel-pas used by Muaupoko were Tareremango, worked by Wi Perahama. Tupokiwai: Karukaru,

107

Or.— 2A

wife of Anewa, worked. Bewiri Whiumairangi used an eel-pa just above this; Ben Stickles works there now; I forget name. Te Houhou :Wi Perahama and Bewiri Whiumairangi used. Pahorekino : Worked by Tawhati-a-Tumata. Makere works there now. Another pa above Pahorekino, I forget name of, Hanita Kowhai worked. Above this again apa used by Tawhati-a-Tumata; forget name. Taheke : Used by Noa te Whata. There was another pa above Taheke used by Muaupoko. All the others between that and the lake were used by Whatanui. Tanguru worked with Te Whatanui at one of them, called Tuturi, after one of our relatives married Te Tahuri Whatanui. When I returned from Wainui to Horowhenua the eel-pas were being used by the persons I have named. I saw them. It is not a fact that the Muaupoko did not work any of the pas. Hanita Kowhai purchased Pukaahu from Whatanui, and Noa te Whata purchased Tonganui. These are two of the pas which I have said belonged to Whatanui. The elder Whatanui was alive when I came here from Wainui. The only pa Taueki had that I know of was Baumatangi, and he gave that to Te Whatanui. It was originally given by Buatapu to Potangotango because Te Horapoto had thrown Potangotango into the water there. Taueki gave Baumatangi to Te Whatanui as a reward for protecting him. It was not owing to that peace-making that Muaupoko were enabled to live here. My elders remained here with Taueki. Whatanui and Muaupoko each had mana over their own land. Whatanui first leased the land south of Hokio. Muaupoko objected, and killed some of McDonald's cattle. I did not see Muaupoko receive any of the rent for that lease. The cattle were killed directly after they were put on the land. The Muaupoko always lived on this land, independently of Te Whatanui. Te Whatanui lived here under the arrangement between Taueki and himself. His slave Oreore was left here first, and when Whatanui saw that he was not killed by Muaupoko he came himself, because he felt assured of the good-will of Muaupoko. [Vol. 1, page 47, Kemp's evidence, read.] That is true. Hunia came here in time of Kupe. All Muaupoko wished to turn Te Whatanui off. Kerehi Tomo worked south of Hokio—at Kouturoa and Paenoa, but they lived at the principal pa at Te Bae-o-te-karaka. I cannot name any one not a descendant of Pariri who had a house south of Hokio. Inia Tamarake was born here. He grew up here. Went to Bangitikei, married, and died there. His mother's lands were at Bangitikei. His father died before he left. Inia went away with his mother. Kaewa went from Pukehou to marry Te Hakeke. When I returned to Palmerston in 1886 I found Kemp had put Warena's name in No. 11, and I agreed. I did not propose it in the first place. That is what I meant by what I said before the Commission. Mr. McDonald said this witness had given evidence so directly opposed to that which he had given in other Courts that it might be necessary for him to call rebutting evidence. Sir W. Buller and Mr. J. M. Fraser both contended that nothing had been elicited from the witness which would entitle Mr. McDonald to call rebutting evidence. Sir W. Buller said he would not cross-examine the witness. Be-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I have admitted that in the Courts of 1890 and 1891 I magnified Hunia's claims and suppressed Kemp's. I was asked to give evidence in 1890. Donald Fraser, McDonald, Wirihana Hunia, and I arranged the particular evidence I was to give. This was done outside the Court in a hotel at Palmerston (Clarendon Hotel). The lawyer was also there—Mr. Barnicoat. Donald Fraser and Mr. McDonald interpreted to Mr. Barnicoat. It was arranged that I was to suppress any evidence favourable to the tribe Muaupoko and Kemp, and to exalt the claims of Ngatipariri and Hunia. This was suggested by Mr. McDonald, Donald Fraser, and Wirihana, and is why I went on the Ngatipariri lines. I remember giving evidence in 1891. The Ngatipariri hapu met before I gave my evidence. The evidence I was to give was arranged outside the Court. I do not know whether it was written down, but all the questions were put to me as they were arranged outside. I went into Court and gave the evidence as arranged, and as appears in the minute-book. I knew at the time I was giving the evidence in 1891 that I was suppressing the truth. I was indirectly promised a reward for suppressing the truth. I was told to occupy Tii and Ta te Arero, and clear it, and then to wait. I went to live on the land. It was after the Court of 1890 that Ta te Arero was promised to me. It was promised to my son Kingi at the same time. Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura had no right to this land. Their chief was Tamaitekiato. They were Ngatiapa and Bangitane. I do not of my own knowledge know where they lived. I heard that they occupied from Poroutawhao to Manawatu. Their principal pa was Upokopoito, on the Manawatu. People who come from a distance as arbitrators and have no occupation have no right. Te Peeti came in that capacity ; his ancestral take gave him no right without occupation. His people have lived at Manawatu for generations. In 1873 Hoani Meihana assisted Kemp in conducting the Horowhenua case. He has ancestral right, but no occupation. Kawana Hunia took part in proceedings in connection with this land up to 1873. He came here as a visitor, but lived permanently at Bangitikei. His ancestor Kahoro lived at Pukehou. Whitiria, Mauruhau, and Bangihouhia all belonged there. Kaewa went from Pukehou to Bangitikei when she married Hakeke. They have no ahika here. Karoro, husband of Mauruhau and father of Kaewa, was a Ngatirangi. His kaingas were Pukerua and Pukehou. Te Uira's death was avenged at Papaitonga -—Te Wharetutaki-o-te-Biunga. The house belonged to Te Biunga, who lived there. When Hamua were defeated at Te Pito-o-Pitorea, near Papaitonga, Tokouru fled, and was pursued by Te Bangitupopoki, and caught on the banks of the lake. The Morehu were shut in the house by Te Riunga. Ido not know what their names were. Te Buatapu was one of those who avenged Te Uira's death. Te Biunga's children and grandchildren have occupied Papaitonga. Some of her descendants went to Otaki, others to Horowhenua and Manawatu. Some of them are here now. The Court adjourned till the 7th instant.

108

Gh—2a

Levin, Wednesday, 7th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Hoani Puihi (to assessor) : I do not know why my parents lived at Otaki, but my father told me I was born there. Ido not know what the right of Pariri and Te Bongo was at Horowhenua, but I heard that they lived here. Te Uira was a Muaupoko. His hapu name was Punahau. It was a large hapu, and populated the whole of this district. TeMou grew up here ; married here ; children born here. I have heard since I came to Horowhenua that Kotuku and party bade farewell to Taueki and those remaining here with him when they left for the South Island, and said, "You remain here ;we will return." At Wainui we lived with Te Peka when we returned from South Island. Oriwia Maiangi lived there with us. Our ariki were of Ngatihaumia. Oriwia did not tell us that Tanguru and ihis mother had gone to Wanganui. Whakahinga went to Wanganui because Hinewairoro told her to go to her relatives there, not because Tanguru was there. Whakahinga was partly a Whanganui. Her mother, Bawa, was from Wanganui. There were Muaupoko living here shortly before Kuititanga. My elders were here among others. Tanguru and others were here; they came overland from Wanganui. I did not go with Whakahinga to Wanganui. I came here before death of Waitohi. Bemember Tanguru ma going to her funeral. Te Bangirurupuni came after. The main body of Muaupoko agree with me that all the permanent occupants of this land should share equally in it. If some get more than others there will be dissatisfaction. We came to this conclusion after we heard that the land was to go back to the people. The matter was discussed at the meeting-house, Pipiriki. Ihaia Taueki did not take part, nor did all the children of Hereora; they were disputing among themselves as to whether they should set up a separate case or join the tribe. Some of them came to the meetings to listen. Some of the persons in the certificate for Horowhenua were put in through aroha. No. 11 was given to Kemp and Warena to hold for the tribe ;no one objected. Ido not remember the year I first met you here; it may have been 1849. The Muaupoko occupation was not confined to north of Hokio before 1873; they cultivated south of that stream. The burning of Ngatiraukawa houses was not the first assertion of ownership by Muaupoko of land south of Hokio. They lived and cultivated with Te Whatanui before that. There was no boundary then. The committee set up at Kupe meeting fixed a boundary, and an attempt was made to define it on the ground, but the posts were removed, and the boundary was not recognised afterwards. I cannot say why Whatanui signed lease north of Hokio. It may have been that Muaupoko allowed him to do so out of friendship for him. He lived on friendly terms with Muaupoko. I agreed to his signing because I had come to look upon him as a relative. I see now that it was a mistake. Kawana Hunia discovered that we were acting unwisely in allowing Whatanui to join in the leases. Mr. Fraser called Bawinia Ihaia. Bawinia Ihaia sworn. Witness ; I live at Horowhenua. lam in the rerewaho list. I know Horowhenua No. 11. I have a claim to it. I claim over the whole block. I remember making a statement at the opening of this case. I was in trouble then about my grandchild, who died about the time I was called to give evidence. I did not know I was to be called. I gave Hukui as my right to the land. I wish to amend my statement. My right is from Pariri and Hura te Papa, as a descendant of Hamua. I have given my whakapapa from Pariri through Hineitohua and Tui. They are correct. Pariri's first child was Hineitohua, Tui was second, Eakeimatua third, Huri fourth, Tawhaowhao fifth, and Kopani was the last. lam a descendant of Eakeimatua. Rakeimatua = Nge I Te Huki = Hineimatahirangi (descendant of Tui) I can give my descent from Tui: — Tui = Hura te Papa Te Aowhakapupu = Tara | Hineimatahirangi Taurimoa Tamati Maunu = Heminga = Haua I I I I Ra Hikurangi Rititia Raroraro = Tarawahi ! Rawinia Ihaia Karaitiana Tarawahi Riria Rahira Wirihana I . Hopa Heremaia [Witness gives whakapapa of all Mr. Fraser's Ngatipariri clients.] I have given all my rights to the land as a descendant of Pariri. I have rights also as a descendant of Hura te Papa, younger brother of Te Angiimua. Puanga and Turanga were brothers of the two former. These are the only lines through which I personally have a claim to this land. Pariri had two sisters—Te Bongo and Kawainga. Te Bongopatahi had a right to this land. I can trace Oriwia Maiangi and Pirihira Hautapu from Te Bongo.

109

G.—2a

Te Rongopatahi = Tuhea ! Tapitaonga = Hore (of Ngatiapa) Te Kahu == Ninikura (of Ngatiapa) Pahuki == Te Atamaiwaho Whakamae = Puri Kura-i-tuhi = Tapuae (descendant of Potangotango) Taueki = Kahukore J Ihaia Hereora I Takue — Roriki Te Marangai = Makehu (chief of Tireo) Te Kahika = Te Oranga Te Aotariwhai = Te Uinga (of Ngatihae) I I Te Rangirurupuni Tai Te Korenga = Hoerara Te Haha Tohu (second husband) = Kokota = Punui-o-fconga | i (of Ngatiwaiorehua) Oriwia Maiangi Hapimana Tohu 1 I I | Wereta Pahi = Tekiri Koriri = Kaimaoa Mohi te Whiumaiwaho Matene Pakauwera I I I | Pirihira Arahura Pirihira Hautapu Himiona Taiweherua Paranihia Riwai Himiona te Hopu Pirihira Ngauru These are the descendants of Te Bongopatahi that I know. Te Angiimua married Hineitohua on the birth of Bangihikaka te Angiimua, and his wife left this land; went south; lived and died at Hongoeka. Puanga went away to the other side of Tararua ; his descendants remained here ; he returned here and died at Mahoenui. Turanga lived here; he married Wairoto, a descendant of Te Biunga. Their children were Te Bangiwhakatikaia, Waiorua, Te Aopineke, and Baukatauri. I cannot trace all their descendants. Te Ngarue had rights to this land; so had Temou and Puakiteao. The descendants of the latter came here. Her daughter, Te Biunga, lived at Waiwiri; her pa was called Papaitonga. Te Aitanga-a-whareao lived there also. I do not know who Te Biunga married. My grandfather, Tamati Maunu, taught me the whakapapa I have given. All the ancestors who lived here occupied the whole of the land in common. I heard Wirihana Hunia and Paki te Hunga giving evidence in 1890 about a boundary on this land between Pariri and Te Bongo. I never heard of such a boundary before that time. My ancestors had pas on this land —Waipata and Pukeiti. There were named houses in these pas. Pepara was one. The pa and the house were mine—the Muaupoko. These were the only pas my ancestors had. They were first occupied in time of Hura te Papa and Te Awhea. The descendants of those ancestors also occupied them, with other descendants of Pariri. They have been occupied in my time. I have lived at Te Namuiti and Karapu. Kouturoa was a kainga and cultivation. Tamati Maunu and my father lived and worked there. I was born at Bangitikei. I first came to Horowhenua when my father went to Bangitikei to bring back his first wife, Te Wao. I came here with them. I was a baby. I grew up here. I returned to Bangitikei in 1849. When my tupuna died I came back here, and have remained here ever since. I returned shortly after sale of Bangitikei [probably 1849]. We all lived at Te Bae-o-te-karaka when I first came back, so that we could attend church. Pariri and Te Hukui both died here; they are buried at Waikoukou. Hura te Papa and Tui lived and died here. Huri lived at Bangitikei. Pewarangi and Kiore lived here. Former is buried at Otaewa. Tiao died here ; buried at Puketawai. Te Marika lived here, died here, and is buried at Kouturoa. Te Aowhakapupu lived here; he is buried at Kouturoa. Hineimatahirangi lived and died here. Heminga lived here ; died here. Te Bahikurangi lived here; he is buried on the block, at the pa. Te Awhea lived here at his own place, and died here. Tamati Maunu died and is buried at Kouturoa. Hinerangi lived here; died and buried at the pa. Tangata Atua lived here ; she married at Waitawa. Turikatuku lived at Waitawa. Married a European. Came back here. One of her children, Ben Stickles, was born here. Hanita Kowhai asked her to send the child back to him when it grew up. Ben Stickles came back when he grew up, and Hanita gave him his daughter to wife. This was long before 1873 (about 1863). I forget when Hana Bata came here. She went from Porirua to Bangitikei. Pire Tikara came here before the telegraphline was put up. Baroraro lived here; she died here, and is buried at the pa. Wirihana died at Waitotara on his return from Parihaka. He went from here. He lived permanently here; Bahira Wirihana also. Biria Heremaia lived here, and begat Hopa. Karaitiana Tarawahi lives here now. Maata Hinekirangi lived here until her husband, Biwai te Amo, died; then she went away. Mr. McDonald asked the Court if it would give some indication of the occupation it considered necessary to entitle the owners to a share in No. 11; if this were done it might be possible to shorten the proceedings considerably. Mr. J. M. Fraser said he could bring evidence in support of the occupation of nearly all of his clients similar to that given by the present witness regarding her own claims, but it would take some time, and he would not go into all their rights so extensively if the Court did not consider it necessary. The Court, in reply to Mr. McDonald, pointed out that there were certain principles recognised as conferring a proprietary right, but there were cases in which it might not be advisable to adhere to such principles, and the present case appeared to be one, and consequently it appeared inadvisable

G.— 2a

110

to lay down any hard-and-fast rule in the matter ; but in respect of the suggestions made, and with a view to shorten proceedings, the following course might be adopted if all the parties agreed to adhere to it—viz., that if Mr. Fraser would merely adduce evidence on certain points in respect of those persons amongst his clients who he knew were opposed by the other claimants, and if agents for the other parties did not attempt to assail the rights of the others in cross-examination, the Court would assume that their rights were admitted. This was explained to the conductors, and they all approved of the suggestion to shorten the proceedings. The Court adjourned till the Bth instant.

Levin, Thursday, Bth July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Bawinia Ihaia's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : The descendants of Kopani are the section of Muaupoko known as the koura mawhitiwhiti. Parikautuku was the only descendant of Kopani who did not go. He was grandfather of Inia Tamarake. Te-tira-o-kotuku were the koura mawhitiwhiii. Tairatu was the father of Kotuku. Maewa was Kotuku's wife. Tairatu went to take possession of Waiarawa. Bangihiwinui killed his slaves. When Tairatu returned he found that his slaves had been killed, and he then went to the South Island with Kotuku. He died in the South Island. Kotuku was killed in the South Island. Ido not know where Komakorau died. He married Taiata, sister of Wharariki. Taiata returned here and died after Christianity was introduced. Iritana was born in the South Island. Wharariki lived at Horowhenua permanently. Te Paki was born at Waikanae. Hanita and Makere brought him here when he was a child. He lived here till he was grown up, and then went to Ngatikahungunu for two years, and returned here. Stayed here a short time and went to Bangitikei, married, and lived at Bangitikei. His children were born there. Ido not consider he has been a permanent resident of Horowhenua. When his first wife died he came here to interfere with me. He wanted to work at Tahunangarara, near Kouturoa, but I objected, and he went away again, and married his present wife. After this marriage he returned and built a toetoe house. Did not stay long. Went away, and remained away. He is not an ahika roa. His children, Paraima and Ngahina, have never lived here. Two of his children who were living with Iritana died and are buried at Otaewa. I knew Buta te Kiri; she was a permanent resident on this land, as were her parents before her. She was a descendant of Potangotango. Her father, Mahanga, died and is buried here. Buta te Kiri lived, died, and is buried here; her husband was a Taranaki man ; her children live here. Mr. Fraser explained that he had objected to Hetariki Matao in mistake; his clients admitted Hetariki's rights. Witness : I knew Ema te Whango. Ido not know where she lived first, but she afterwards lived at Bangitikei. She returned here in 1873. Died here. Do not know who her parents were. I know Boreta Tawhai and Mananui Tawhai; they have lived at Bangitikei. Neither Ema te Whango nor her children —Boreta Tawhai, Mananui Tawhai, and Maata te Whango—have any right by occupation. I have made a mistake. Mananui Tawhai lived here. I admit his right. Watarawi te Hau has never lived here :no ahika. Bihari Tarakihi lived at Arapaoa, but I do not know why he went there; he returned with the others, and went to Bangitikei to live. Came here in 1873. No right by occupation. Herewini Bakautihia lived south of this, at Waikanae; he came here before Te Kuititanga from Porirua. Lived here a long time. Went to Bangitikei to take his wife there. Beturned and died here. His father's name was Ihu, a descendant of Te Arahi, younger brother of Te Piro. Te Arahi lived and died here. Te Ihu lived here. Ido not know where he died. The descendants of Piro, Arahi, and Hauiti were permanent residents of this land. I know the Muruahi family. Waata Muruahi came here in 1866. He has lived here ever since. Came from the Chathams. None of his brothers have lived here. Their father, Muruahi, did. He was the younger brother of Tomo. Muruahi lived here until he married; went to Ngatiawa, and then to Chathams. Beturned to Taranaki and died there. Te Mango was the father of Muruahi; he lived here. Waata is the only one of the Muruahi family who has ahika; he assisted in the pakanga over this land. I know Noti Amorangi and Amorangi Bihara. Amorangi Bihara lived on this land. His mother, Hana Kotai, died here. Her husband belonged to Wanganui. Amorangi has not lived here permanently; mostly at Wanganui. Noti Amorangi was born and grew up here. I admit that she is an ahika. Henare Mahuika has no ahika here. Hamiora Potau and Batima Potau have no occupation. Pere Korana has no occupation; only lately returned here from Manawatu. I know Te Bangimairehau. I can explain his take. He came here before Kuititanga. Lived here a long time. Turangapiti, of Ngatiapa, invited him to go to Bangitikei, which he did ; then returned here. Afterwards went to Manawatu to Waitere Kakiwa. Beturned here and remained some time. Then went to Wellington. Ban away with Ngakirikiri's wife, and brought her here. The woman was sent back, and Bangimairehau tried for his offence. When he came back to Horowhenua he remained here permanently. He has ahika. His father was Te Uirangi. He lived here, and was engaged in the fighting against Bauparaha. Winara Baorao, Ani Kanara, and Ngariki were born and lived here ; they have ahika. I know Bia Baikokiritia. I have not seen her living here. She married a Ngatiapa. Buihi was her mother. She lived at Bangitikei; married Hura, of Ngatiapa. Tukoko, father of Buihi, I never saw; he was before my time. Buihi died at Bangitikei. I

111

G.—2a

do not admit Eia's ahiha. Pirihira Hautapu's father, Mohi, escaped when Kotuku was killed at Taitapu. Hβ married Pounamu, and begat Pirihira Hautapu. She married Mihaka, of Ngatimaniapoto, and begat Pirihira Ngahue. Mohi te Whiumaiwaho came here at time of Christianity; lived and died here. Pirihira Hautapu lived here, and then went to the South Island ; she had ahika. The name " Muaupoko " was not derived from Tupatunui; it originated from " Te-upoko-o-te-ika." I have never heard that Amarumoari had a house called Ngahihi-o-te-ra. It is true that Te Piro and Eangihikaka fought the Ngatikokopu, but it is not true that they acquired any land by it. The cause of the quarrel was a tinder-stick called Haereiti; it belonged to Te Piro, who said that Ngamaihi had thrown it in the water at Manawatu. Te Piro went to Pukehou, to Eangihikaka, for assistance. The fight took place on this side of Manawatu Eiver, about Poroutawhao. The Ngatikokopu, Ngatikura, and Ngatipouwhenua were defeated there. I did not hear that any land was taken. None of the hapus defeated ever had any right in Horowhenua. I never heard that Eangihikaka gave the land conquered to Tairatu. Tamati Maunu was an old man and would have known; he did not tell me; he told me about the tinder-stick. Pariri never lived at Papaitonga, nor have Ngatipariri. I never heard that Eangihikaka lived there. Tawhakahiku and Mangere were not killed by Bangiheheke ; they were killed by Aitupaoa and Muaupoko. Ngataitoko did not own Papaitonga ; his kainga was at Taikoria. It is not true that Waipata was built after conquest of Ngatikokopu; it was built in time of Hura te Papa and Awhea. I heard Wirihana Hunia's evidence as to the occupation of his line. Bangihikaka's child was Whitirea, who married Kahoro, and lived at Pukehou. They never lived on this land. Their child, Mauruhau, married Karoro, from the South. They lived at Pukehou. I never heard that they lived on this land. Their daughter Kaewa married Te Hakeke, and lived at Eangitikei. I never saw Kaewa's body here; her head was brought here. I never heard that Kaewa lived on this land. Kaewa's son was Hunia. I have seen him visiting his relatives here for a few days at a time. It was the Muaupoko themselves who recovered their land, not Hunia; he has no right here; he never cultivated. I remember Hunia bringing posts to Waiwherowhero; that was the first occasion on which he asserted ownership to this land. The Muaupoko objected to his fencing, and prevented his doing so. He did not persist. The whole of Muaupoko obstructed. Te Eangihouhia came here twice. The first time he returned to his kainga, Pukehou. The second time he came was when he killed Hotoke. He murdered Hotoke and tied here. He lived at Te Eae-o-te-karaka, where we all lived. He was taken ill, and Te Hakeke took him to Eangitikei. His son Ihaka went with him, and lived there a long time. Hunia treated him badly, and he returned here. We were sorry for him, and welcomed him. He died here. He was not ahika tuturu. Tawhati-a-Tumata lived permanently on this land; he married Mango, I believe, of Ngatiapa. Their child was Mere Mionga; she did not live permanently here. I do not know where she lived; she died at Eangitikei. Not an ahika. Makere is the ahika of that family. Euihi Wuunu is in the same position as Mere Mionga. When Mere Mionga married Hauparoa she went away. Her children and grandchildren have never returned. None of them are ahika tuturu. They have never lived here. Manihera te Eau lived here when he married Pirihira te Eau; he should not share in No. 11; his interest in No. 3 is sufficient. Pirihira te Eau had good rights ; she was descended from the ancestors who occupied the land. Ani Kanara Tihore, Peefci te Aweawe, Hoani Meihana, and Meretene Whakaewa have no right here; they have never occupied. Have no claim to No. 11. Ani Kanara was brought here by Korehe from Papakowhai, Porirua; she was not an ahika. Ngarangiwhakaotia, father of Meretene Whakaewa, lived on this land, and fought in defence of it; he married Eangahau, who died at her own place, Manawatu. Ngarangiwhakaotia was killed at Mahurangi. I made a mistake; Eangahau was killed with her husband at Mahurangi. Meretene Whakaewa was with Ngatikahungunu when her parents were murdered; she never lived on this land, so far as I have heard. Hanita Kowhai was captured at Otauru, Manawatu. Ihaia Taueki, Kahukore, Maraea Ngarewai, Eipeka Whakauru were taken with him. It was through a kohuru by Ngatiapa. Hanita was taken to Wanganui. I do not remember when he returned, but I was young. He was an ahika, and took part in the fights. Himiona Kowhai has rights by occupation. Inia Tamaraki lived here formerly. Went to Eangitikei when he married. Before the Court of 1873, and before the fight at Okotuku (1867). He has never returned. I dispute his right. Iritana, the half-sister of Te Paki, has rights in No. 11 ; she has lived here permanently. Pane Korana is not a descendant of any of the ancestors I have named that I know of; she has not occupied this land permanently; no ahika. Ido not know who her parents were. I deny her right. Eiwai te Amo has occupied ; he went away, returned, and took part in the troubles over this land. Lived here permanently, and died here. Wiki Hanita was born here and died here: an ahika. Tapha Himiona: An akika. Born here. Daughter of Makere. Excepting Wirihana Hunia, none of the descendants of Kawana Hunia have ever occupied this land at all. Wirihana Hunia was brought here as a child, at time of tangi over Taueki. He could not walk. He returned to Eangitikei when he was about nine years of age. He has never lived here since until the Eoyal Commission sat last year. He is not an ahika. I deny that he has any right to No. 11. He has no houses or cultivations on it. I know Akuira Takapo; he was an ahika. Lived with his grandfather, Tamati Maunu. Died here. No children. Himiona Taiweherua : Ahika roa. Hetariki Takapo was a Ngatikahungunu. Not a descendant of ancestors set up in this case. HasnorighttoNo.il. Heni Wairangi: An ahika. Maaka Ngorongoro went to Ngatiawa, and then lived at Eangitikei; he has no ahika. Mata Hineki.rangi brought up here. Married Eiwai. On his death she went to Ngatikahungunu. I admit her right in No. 11. Meri Nireaha and Pirihira Nireaha have never lived here. No ahika. They are in the same position as the Muruahis. Petera te Ha I admit; he lived and died here. Wiki Pua I admit; she has lived here. Eihipeti Nireaha brought up and married here. Some time after marriage went away. Has not lived here since. She went away long before the Court of 1873. I know that Eihipeti has been appointed successor to four owners. I think that she has received sufficient in No. 3. I remember the Court of

G.—2a

112

1886. No. 11 was set apart for the ahika at that Court—for those who were then living. lam not dear about Baraku's claim; Ido not understand it. Taueki did not give all Muaupoko land south of Hokio to Whatanui; he only gave him Baumatangi and Mauri. The latter is a piece of bush near Baumatangi. I married Ihaia Taueki many years ago. We have grandchildren. I did not hear Baraku give boundary of land she alleges was given by Taueki to Whatanui. [Boundary read.] I never heard Ihaia Taueki mention that boundary. He never laid down any boundary between the people. Tamati Maunu never told me of any such boundary ; it is a fabrication. None of Muaupoko told me of it. I heard Baraku give names of bird-snaring trees and streams which she said belonged to Potangotango. It is not true. There are none on this land. I deny that her ancestor went by Te Bimu track to hunt. Te Karaka-a-te-aitu was not a bird-snaring tree; it was a karaka-tree belonging to Noa te Whata and myself; it was between Te Kopi and Te Arero Hautai. Tamati Maunu told me of the attack on Te Biunga at Papaitonga. Those who escaped from Pito-o-pitorea came to Papaitonga. The pa there belonged to Te Biunga and Hamua (Te Aitanga-a-Whareao). The refugees were Ngaituhakeke. I heard that a murder was the cause of the Pito-o-pitorea fight. I have not been told whose death it was to avenge. I have heard of peacemaking between Taueki and Te Whatanui. The bulk of Muaupoko were at Te Namuiti awaiting Te Whatanui. The Muaupoko were living independently ; they did not go into Whatanui's house. Whatanui and his people came into Taueki's house at Te Namuiti. Muaupoko lived independently down to time of Court in 1873. There was no trouble between Muaupoko and Te Whatanui the elder. It was in Tutaki's time that trouble arose. The Muaupoko objected to his leasing the land. No one incited them to object. They showed their objection when Whatanui Tutaki allowed McDonald to put his sheep and cattle on the land. Muaupoko interfered, and Whatanui gave £9 to Maianewa, who brought it to Tamati Maunu. Tamati gave it to the tribe. Te Whatanui caused slight trouble by selling a piece of land to Mr. Yuille. Muaupoko objected, and Whatanui did not persist. Te Whatanui Haua brought sheep from Otaki to Weraroa ; they belonged to a European. Muaupoko told him to take them back, and they were taken back. There were three Whatanuis, but Whatanui Tutaki was the one who caused serious trouble. The whole of Muaupoko assisted wherever trouble arose, whether it was north or south. I never heard from Tamati Maunu that Te Aweawe was here when peace was made between Taueki and Te Whatanui. It is true that in Whatanui's time the pas in Hokio near his kainga were not worked by Muaupoko, but those seaward of this kainga were. Hoani Puihi's evidence as to the pas was correct. Wirihana's evidence that none of the pas in Hokio were worked by Muaupoko was incorrect. The Ngatiraukawa wished to lay down a boundary at Te Tau-o-te-ruru. Muaupoko objected, and Whatanui did not repeat the attempt. I saw the post at Waiwherowhero. Hunia put it up and named it Pariri. Makere and I were there when he erected it. The young people pulled it up. It was before the Court of 1873. Hopa Heremaia pulled it up. Hunia did not take any steps. I think it was after Kupe meeting that post was put in. Muaupoko built Kupe. The posts were procured here. Hunia sent some timber, but it arrived after the house was built and the meeting over. Cross-examined by Wi Kiriwehi. Witness : Ido not say that Pariri alone owned this land. I have given all the ancestors who had rights in it. Some of the descendants of Pariri come from Potangotango also. Hariata is a descendant of Buatapu. Tireo, Te Biunga, Buatapu, and Potangotango all had rights in Horowhenua. I heard Bia give her whakapapa from Potangotango; it is correct. Bia was wrong in saying that her tupuna worked on this land. I never saw their cultivations. I never saw her mother cultivating at Horowhenua. I never saw her parents or grand-parents cultivating at the places named by Bia. I deny that they ever did so. I have seen Ani Kanara working at those places. Tukokoki, Mare, Hapi, and Te Matangi were all children of the same parents ; they lived on this land; did not go to the South Island; nor did their children. I do not know where Te Whakaaturangi was born ; she lived at Bangitikei. I heard Bia say that she came here with her parents when they brought a canoe and guns and gave them to Baorao; I deny it. I never saw the canoe or the guns. I never saw Bia or her parents here. I never heard that Hura had children named Ngapuhou and Waewae, or that they died here. I know a child of his named Taenui. It is true that Himiona Hapu brought Bamari here to marry her to a Muaupoko. Te Whakaaturangi was born long before me. If Hopa te Piki has said she cultivated here that is his story; I never saw her. I admit that Bamari, sister of Bia, had ahika ; she married Hopa te Piki, and lived here. If Hoani Puihi said that Bia had ahika I cannot help it. I say she has not, and maintain that lam right. 1 admit that Bia sent presents of food and a canoe to Ani Kanara. The name of the canoe is " Tikitiki." Any rights that Bamari had should go to Bia. Himiona te Hopu was a chief of Muaupoko, and had rights in this land. Ani Kanara, Bia, and others are the persons who should succeed him. Turuki lived here permanently. I heard that she was a Ngatikura and Ngatiapa. She married two men of Muaupoko, Maru and Heremaia. Hoani Puihi was wrong in saying that Turuki only lived here a short time. Hoani Puihi was mistaken in saying that Ema te Whango and family had ahika. I say again they had not. The Court adjourned till the 9th instant.

Levin, Friday, 9th July, 1897 The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed.

113

G.—2a.

Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Rawinia Ihaia cross-examined by Rawiri Rota.

Witness : I have rights to this land from Pariri—the same Pariri that Wirihana Hunia and party claim from. I have known for a long time that I had rights in No. 11 from Pariri. When I gave evidence in my primd facie case I was in great grief, and unfit to give evidence. That is how I account for having said that I claimed from Te Hukui. It was not arranged that I was to give evidence after Kemp in support of the rights of the tribe. I was with my grandchild, who had just died, when Kemp gave his evidence on the sth May last. I do not know how Pariri acquired a right to this land. I have not said that all Muaupoko are descended from Pariri; some of them are. Tamati Maunu did not tell me that there was a boundary between the descendants of Puakiteao and Pariri, or between Te Rongopatahi and Pariri. Eihipeti Nireaha and Paki te Hunga were wrong in saying that there was a boundary between Te Rongo and Pariri. I lived with Tamati Maunu, and would have heard of it if there had been. I have already informed the Court that I was brought to Horowhenua when I was an infant. When I was grown up I went to Rangitikei, and returned here to my parents. I commenced to live here permanently after the sale of Rangitikei. I did not marry Ihaia Taueki for some time after that (1855). We married in the year of the great earthquake. When Te Rangipikitia took me to Rangitikei Tamati Maunu was here. His brothers were at Turakina. Tamati Maunu lived at Te Rae-o-te-karaka at that time. The only time he went away that I know of, except on visits to relatives, was when he went to Rangitikei to share in the money paid for that land. He was captured by Kaeaea with others. I do not know what taua captured him, but it was after Te Wii. He was captured at Kouturoa and taken to Manawatu, where he escaped, and returned here. This was long before Christianity. When he returned- from captivity he lived at Kouturoa and the pa Te Rae-o-te-karaka. While at Kouturoa he cultivated at Paenoa, Ta te Arero, and other places. His mother was Waikorokio, of Ngatiwhiti, Ngatihauiti, and Te Upokoiri. She had no rights here. I was admitted into Ratahi and Ruatangata as a descendant of Waikorokio. Te Rangimairehau came here before Te Kuititanga. I heard this not from Tamati Maunu. I heard people saying so, and when I saw Rangimairehau I believed it. It was before I married that I first saw him here. He was here when Ramari was brought to Horowhenua. I admit that he was always travelling about. He lived here with his matua at the time he was married to Pareraukawa. After he married Hiraani he built a house of his own here, lived here some time, then went to Manawatu to live. His wife died there. He returned here and married Makere. I heard from Herewini Rakautihia himself that he returned here before Kuititanga. Tamati Maunu told me that Herewini was living with Pukekohatu in the South Island, and returned here after Christianity. His ancestors and elders kept his fires alight during his absence. It is true that Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace. The peace was made at Te Namuiti. I have not heard why peace was made. I have not heard that Taueki asked Whatanui if he could protect him, or that Whatanui said he could. Tamati Maunu did not tell me that peace was made at Te Kawiu after the killing of Paipai and Toheriri. It is not likely that peace would be made i waenga tahora. The Muaupoko were assembled at Te Namuiti when Whatanui came. He came from Otaki. Tamati Maunu told me that Whatanui went into Taueki's house there, and they made peace. I have not heard that the peace was made before Whatanui went to Otaki, or that Muaupoko assembled at Te Namuiti to receive him on his return from that place. I repeat that Muaupoko interfered with Whatanui's lease. Ido not know date lease commenced. The interference was the killing of McDonald's cattle. I cannot give an opinion as to the occupation of the different owners of this land. I wish to correct the evidence I gave yesterday about Ema te Whango, Maata te Whango, and Amorangi Rihara. I admit now that they have a right to this land. They were here at time of Ngatiraukawa disturbance when Kupe was built. The koura tnawhithuhiti are not, in my opinion, permanent occupants. They are in the certificate. The people who were captured are in the certificate., Kemp put them in; I did not. The ahika are the people who have lived permanently on the land. They have greater rights by occupation than those who were taken prisoners or those who are called koura mawhitiwhiti.

Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari.

Witness : Te Ngarue, Puakiteao, and Te Mou all had rights on this land. Potangotango and Te Ruatapu had rights here. Tireo remained at Manawatu. Te Riunga lived at Papaitonga. Those of her descendants who lived here had rights ; not those who lived at Manawatu. I do not know how Pariri acquired a right here. Te Hukui had no right at Horowhenua. The descendants of Makehu who have occupied have rights in Horowhenua. I do not know how any of the ancestors obtained a right to this land. My elders did not tell me the boundaries of Muaupoko territory, but I know that some of my ancestors had rights at Otaki. I have heard Kemp say that Muaupoko land extended from Manawatu to a long way south of this. I do not know how far south. Hoani Meihana is one of the descendants of Tireo who has rights at Manawatu through that ancestor. I do not know any descendants of Te Riunga who have rights to Manawatu lands. I repeat that Te Riunga and Te Aitanga-a-Whareao owned Papaitonga. Ido not know that Taitoko has rights in Manawatu lands ; I have not said that he has. He has rights in this land. Te Aweawe has not, because he has not occupied. Taitoko has rights by ancestry and occupation. He had houses and cultivations on this land. Tanguru built the houses. Ani Kanara Tihore has no right here ; her lands are at Manawatu. Ngarangiwhakaotia took part in the fights about the land ; he had no take to this particular part; he lived further south. When he married Rangahau he lived at Manawatu. With his first wife he lived south of this place. I do not know what rights Rangahau had at Manawatu, but she lived there permanently. She had no houses or cultivations here. No ahika. Her descendants have not lived here; that is why I say she had no ahika. Ngarangiwhakaotia fought against Te Rauparaha; he was connected with my 15— Q. 2a.

G.—2a

114

people on our Ngatirangi side. Although I am descendant of his, I still say he had no right to this land. Defence of land must be followed by occupation to give the defender a right. If Ngarangiwhakaotia had any right to this land it has gone to the permanent residents. Eangahau had no rights here at all. We fought for this land up to 1873, at which time it was secured to us by Kemp. Meretene Whakaewa did not assist us to defend the land. Ido not know how long Ani Kanara Tihore lived here with Te Kerehi. I saw her here. She cultivated with Te Kerehi. Hoani Puihi may have been right if he said she only came here a year before she died. Peeti te Aweawe acted as an arbitrator in the matter of the boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. Ido not know that his ancestors lived here ; they lived at Manawatu, and so did he. Ido not know who his ancestors were. Some of Puakiteao's descendants lived here; others at Manawatu. I know those who have lived here. I cannot say whether Puakiteao had rights in Manawatu lands. Peeti te Aweawe was a descendant of Te Biunga, but he never lived here. Kemp has rights from Te Biunga and by occupation. Peeti te Aweawe came here twice only that I know of as arbitrator —once to Poroutawhao, and the second time to the pa at Pipiriki. The peace-making at Karekare was with Hakeke and Taiweherua. I have not heard that Mahuri and Te Aweawe were concerned in it. Ido not know where Taiweherua lived. Some of the Muaupoko lived in Manawatu, but the Muaupoko tuturu always lived here. Ihaia Taueki lived at Otauru at one time. I do not know that he had any rights there. I dispute Peeti te Aweawe's rights to this land on the ground that he has not occupied it. I have not heard that Peeti te Aweawe assisted Muaupoko against Whatanui, or that Te Aweawe fixed the boundary at Ngatokorua. Te Bakeimanuhiri was one of those shut in the house by Te Biunga at Papaitonga. Buatapu, Potangotango, and war-party wished to kill them. The people Te Biunga protected were from the other side of the range. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : Tawhati was father of Makere. He had rights here by ancestry and occupation. His children were Makere and Mere Mionga. The latter was by a Ngatiapa woman named Mango. Tawhati's right was from Te x\rahi, a descendant of Te Ngarue. By European law Mere Mionga would succeed to Tawhati's interest in No. 11; according to Maori custom it should go to Makere, because she has lived here permanently. Herewini Bakautihia has ahika. I know that some of Mere Mionga's daughters have been appointed successors to him; they are entitled by relationship, but not by residence on this land. I did not see Mere Mionga here in 1873 ; she was at Foxton in that year. lam wrong ; Mere Mionga did bring food for Kupe meeting, but that is not sufficient to justify her admission into No. 11. I know Tawhati's cultivations ; Makere is using them now at Te Kapa, Watutua, and Te Puapua. These are all I know of. Mere Mionga has no ahika here. I cannot give an instance where one of two children inherited the whole of their father's property. Manihera te Bau lived here permanently on his wife's right. No. 11 was cut off in 1886 by Kemp for the ahika. Manihera has had as much as he is entitled to already ; his ahika was his wife's. Pirihira te Bau was given to Te Manihera in exchange for Koriri. It would be correct to say that Manihera te Bau lived here through his ringakaha. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : Puakiteao, Te Mou, Ngarue, Pariri, Bongopatahi, and Hura te Papa had rights here. My right commences with Pariri. I do not know which of the ancestors first lived on the land. The descendants of each of these ancestors told me that they had rights to this land. Makere and many others told me that Te Ngarue had rights here. I have heard Kemp say that Puakiteao, Buatapu, Potangotango had rights. Tamati Maunu told me that Hura te Papa and Pariri had rights here. Noa te Whata told me that Te Biunga was an owner of this land ; Kemp has also said so. Tamati Maunu and Noa told me that Te Aitanga-a-Whareao and Te Biunga were the owners of Papaitonga. Kemp was wrong when he objected to Pariri; she and her uri would not have lived permanently on the land if she had had no right. Tamati Maunu married a descendant of Puakiteao. Tapuwae married Te Kuraaitu, who was from Te Bongopatahi. Hineikimihia, from Te Biunga, married Takiari, of Pariri, and begat Wharariki and Taiata. Tumata, from Te Ngarue, married Taurimoa, of Pariri. Tohu, of Te Biunga, married Kokota, of Te Bongo. Te Kawhiri, of Ngarue, married Te Hikapirau, from Pariri. There are other intermarriages, and this is why I say that all the ancestors had rights in this land. I have not heard who of Te Biunga and Whereao first lived at Papaitonga; Tamati did not tell me. Cannot say whether Te Wharetutaki was before or after Te Whareao's time. Turanga married Wairoto, daughter of Te Biunga; Ido not know where, but I heard that they lived permanently at Waiwiri. Whareao married Taheke. Some people say that Waiorua was the father of Whareao; others that Puanga was his father. I have heard that Whareao lived on the other side of the range at one tinie. I have not heard whether Whareao and her children came here to the land of their ancestor, Te Biunga. I have heard that Puakiteao used to go to the other side of the range. I never heard that Te Biunga went. I have a right to this land through the occupation of my ancestors, followed by my own. Te Paki was brought here a little boy by Makere and Hanita ; grew up here ; went to Wairarapa, and thence to Bangitikei; married there; children born there.- On that ground I say he has no ahika. His fire went out when he left for Wairarapa. He has been back here on visits. If Iritana chooses to admit him that is her matter. I have no animosity towards Te Paki. lam supporting the rights of the tribe on the lines that we have agreed upon. Maaka Ngorongoro had no ahika ; if he had survived his brothers who occupied he would be entitled to their ahika ; as he is dead, the rights should go to Heni. Eparaima Paki and Ngahuia Paki have never occupied this land; they are entitled to the ahika of their ancestors. Pirihira and Meri Nireaha have never lived here. Ngatuere and Ani Patene were here in 1872. Pirihira Nireaha was with them. They were at Palmerston in 1886. Bihipeti's children were put in the list on my ahika and her own. I have

115

G.— 2a

kept her fires alight since she went away. The children can only come in on their mother's right. The tribe considered that Eihipeti's claim has been satisfied because she has had so many shares in No. 3. The kaingas and cultivations of her ancestors are not in No. 3. This block was set apart by Kemp in 1886 for the ahika. There was no writing, but Kemp said that it was for his people who had occupied. The Court adjourned till the 12th instant.

Levin, Monday, 12th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Bawinia Ihaia cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: There was no serious trouble between Taueki and elder Whatanui. It was Te Whatanui who sought Taueki's friendship. Taueki gave Whatanui the Baumatangi eel-weir and Te Mauri, a piece of bush. This was all that Taueki gave Whatanui. In 1849, or thereabouts, Noa te Whata and Hanita Kowhai purchased from Whatanui, jun., the right to use two eel-pas on Hokio Stream—Tonganui and Pukaahu. Ido not know what right Whatanui, jun., had to sell the eel-pas. lam not aware that they were ever given to Te Whatanui the elder. Whatanui, jun., had no right to them. I cannot say whether Noa te Whata and Hanita Kowhai acquiesced in Whatanui's assertion of right to the pas he sold. I was at Bangitikei at time of first sale of Bangitikei. Tamati Maunu went there afterwards. He never told me whether he attended a meeting at Te Awahou previous to the sale at Bangitikei. Mr. McDonald here put a question to witness re encroachments of the Ngatiraukawa at Bangitikei. Mr. J. M. Fraser objected. The Court did not consider it necessary to examine the witness on the point, especially as she seemed to have no knowledge of what took place at Bangitikei. Witness (to Mr. McDonald) : The mana oi Te Whatanui did not extend over the whole of Hokio Stream. Some of his relatives claimed rights in the stream as against Muaupoko, but they did not succeed. Muaupoko objected to Noa and Hanita purchasing the pas from Te Whatanui. Some of them are dead. Makere is one who objected. Tonganui was Noa's pa; he had no occasion to purchase it. Pukaahu belonged to Hanita ; it came to him from his ancestor Te Horapoto. Makere was working eel-pas in Hokio Stream when Noa purchased Tonganui; she was working Pahorekino, a pa below Tauanui. I do not know why Noa should pay money to Whatanui for his own pa. Bewiri te Whiumairangi worked apa at the same time. Ido not know that Makere's husband gave Whatanui an eel-basket for the right to use the pa. I heard that there was a proposal to sell land to the Crown in Tamati Maunu's time. He, Bangirurupuni, and Noa te Whata wanted to sell a portion near the mountains. Kemp stopped them. I do not know of any other proposed sale. Hetariki Takapo always lived with Tamati Maunu. [Book produced supposed to have been written by Hetariki.] I remember the boundary described in that book. I went to Mahoenui with others to fix boundary. Hanita Kowhai, Biwai te Amo, and others went. Tamati Maunu did not go. Hetariki Takapo went. I do not know why the boundary was fixed. Te Whatanui afterwards leased the land north of Mahoenui to McDonald—between Mahoenui and Hokio Stream—the seaward part of the land. I do not know that Te Whatanui leased the land north of Hokio. [Lease that was produced before Horowhenua Commission read to witness.] That lease was made because McDonald's cattle strayed across to north side of stream. It was a riihi pokanoa. Those who signed it agreed to Whatanui taking part in it. Muaupoko interfered with both leases until satisfactory terms were made with them. Te Whatanui agreed to Muaupoko participating in rent for south side. Muaupoko then agreed to lease north side. Muaupoko agreed to Whatanui taking part in both leases. It was a whakatete on the part of Whatanui. Muaupoko killed some of McDonald's cattle before these leases were satisfactorily settled. This convinced Whatanui that Muaupoko still had the mana over their land, and that he had to consider them. McDonald also knew that Te Whatanui had no mana over the land. Muaupoko allowed Whatanui to sign the leases because matters had been amicably arranged, and the Muaupoko knew that they had the mana over the leases. After this trouble was caused by Te Whatanui. He put in a post at Tau-o-te-ruru, as an assertion of right. Muaupoko pulled it out and threw it away. Te Hapimana Tohu and many others pulled out the post. This was in Whatanui Tutaki's time. He did nothing. Kupe was built in consequence of the post being put in. The post was put in a second time. We had a house put up at Panui-o-Marama, to resist the boundary. This was before Kupe. We pulled up the post the second time. Ido not know of Te Whatanui having erected the post a third time. When Kemp went away to the wars he told us to build Kupe, to protect that part. Ngatiawa, Ngatiraukawa, Ngatiapa, Ngatikahungunu assembled at Kupe to discuss matters in connection with the land. Kemp wrote to Muaupoko from the seat of war, exhorting them to uphold their rights. Ihaia Taueki and Topine of Wanganui spoke. Bewiri Whiumairangi also addressed the meeting. Ihaia said, "Although Kemp is absent, let the tribe maintain their rights." That is all I heard. I was busy preparing food. Kawana Hunia was at Kupe meeting. I did not hear him speak. Meeting lasted three or four days. I remember burning of Watene's house. I remember the burning of a house when Tamati Maunu warned Ngatiraukawa. I was one of the party. Tamati Maunu was on good terms with Ngatiraukawa at the time he lived at Kouturoa. Hetariki lived there with him. Some Ngatiraukawa lived there also. [Vol. 1, pages 46, 47, and 256, read.] It is not because Kawana Hunia disturbed the friendly relations

G.—2a

116

subsisting between Tamati Maunu and Ngatiraukawa that I have always opposed Huma s rights. I bear no ill-will to Hunia; he was one of those who went to Mahoenui to destroy Ngatiraukawa houses. All Muaupoko went. Kawana Hunia had nothing to do with the killing of McDonald's cattle; Muaupoko did that themselves. [Vol. 1, page 47, read.] It is true that Kawana Hunia was in the habit of coming here, but Muaupoko had decided to kill the cattle when he arrived. The Muaupoko defended the land themselves. It was not necessary for Hunia to urge them to do so. Tamati Maunu was here, and took part in attack on Te Bauparaha at Te Wii. Toheriri, Takare, and Paipai were Te Aitanga-a-Whareao who lived at Papaitonga. Toheriri was captured at Waiwiri, and taken to Kapiti; killed there. Takare and Paipai afterwards killed at Waiwiri. Tamati Maunu was here then. It was a long time after that Tamati Maunu went to Eangitikei; he went to see his brothers. Did not fly on account of killing of Takare and Paipai. Tamati Maunu took part in fight against Tukorehu. Panekawa was killed at Waipata in revenge for killing of Te Eauparaha's children at Te Wii. Tamati Maunu took part in Waiorua fight; I forget the others. Te Eau was his wife when he went to Eangitikei. Eiwai te Amo was their eldest child. He was born before Tamati Maunu went to Eangitikei. He was captured by Ngatituwharetoa at Waituna, Eangitikei. He was able to walk at the time. Tamati Maunu returned here after the child was taken. Ido not know name of taua he was taken by. Tamati Maunu did not go to Turakina; he came here. lam in some of the Turakina lands by right of ancestry. I was not grown up when I came here from Eangitikei; I was a child. I was taken to Eangitikei again when I was grown up to see my tupuna. I did not hear that Eangihouhia was at Te Wii fight. Did not hear that he killed anybody there. Tairatu was killed or died in the other Island; he was not buried at Komakorau; I deny that he was. Kotuku had a son—Komakorau. Ido not know that he was called after his grandfather's burial-place. Euatapu was killed at Hongoeka, near mouth of Porirua Harbour. Tairatu ran away to South Island. He crossed over with the koura mawhithvhiti. It is not true that Tairatu died before Eauparaha came- here. Tairatu was a descendant of Puakiteao, and married Maewa, a descendant of Pariri. I heard this before Himiona gave his evidence in this case, but I did not know their whakapapa. Ido not know of any earlier marriage between descendants of Pariri and Puakiteao. I do not know who Te Eiunga's husband was, or how she came to live at Papaitonga. Tamati Maunu killed Poaka at Te Wii. I have not heard that Eangihouhia killed Te Whata-a-ti there. Ido not know who owned this land before the ancestors I have named. I know my ancestors had rights. I have heard that Puakiteao's rights were at Tamaki. Some of her descendants came here, and remained here —I mean Potangotango, Te Eiunga, and Euatapu. Tireo stayed at Manawatu ; his child, Makehu, came here. Ido not know how Euatapu acquired here right there ; others can tell. I do not know where Temou and Puakiteao married. I have heard the descendants of Puakiteao say that her post was at Tuhi-mata. I have heard that Potangotango lived here ; his descendants were born and lived here. Euatapu and Te Eiunga also lived here; so have their descendants. Te Ngarue lived here. Had rights here. His lands were at Horowhenua. There is a place at Horowhenua named after one of his children. The Horowhenua Lake was called his papa huahua. There was no boundary between Te Ngarue and the other ancestors. I have heard that Ngataitoko lived at Taikoria, and had a ngarara there. His tupuna, Tupapanui, lived there also. It was Ngataitoko's marriage with Hikaotaota that brought him there. The latter had the right to the land. Te Hukui had no land here. He lived at Otaki. The people showed me his lands there. Hura te Papa had rights here; he came here and remained. The people taken prisoners at Otauru were all descendants of Puakiteao and other ancestors except Eipeka Whakaoma. Ema te Whango was taken in addition to those I have named; she was also a descendant of Puakiteao. I do not know that Te Kiri or Te Eaorao or Konihi were taken prisoners. Koriri was taken prisoner. Pirihira Arahura was not captured. I do not know about Himiona te Hopu. The people who were taken prisoners at Otauru went there to cultivate, and returned here. Puakiteao was Hanita Kowhai's right there. I do not know who Taiweherua was; he may have been a younger brother of Kotuku. I object to all the Muruahi family except Waata, notwithstanding that our conductor did not do so. I object also to Pere Korana, Henare Mahuika, and Henare Potau. I heard part of the whakapapa given by Himiona Kowhai, not all of it. I heard nothing to object to. When Puanga went away he left Matuku here. I have always heard that Wairoto married Turanga, not Te Urukarere, as stated by Kemp. Tawhati-a-henga, Tawhati-a-Tumata, Maraiururangi, Uenuku, Te Anewa, Kawa, Eewiri Whiumairangi, Tohu, and others have cultivated south of Hokio. I have forgotten others. Most of these are Ngatipariri. Pariri was their right there. Pioka and Whatukituki also cultivated there. Tanguru lived there; also Tangahoe, his younger brother. The Court adjourned till the 13th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 13th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Bawinia Ihaia's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Mr. J. M. Fraser handed in list of persons in his list for whom he claimed no right in No. 11 for various reasons. [List read out and explained to those present.] Mr. McDonald said he would not at the present stage remark on the new grounds of objection set up by Mr. Fraser.

117

G.—2a

Mr. Fraser explained that the position his side had taken up was that No. 11 was set apart by Kemp in 1886 for the ahika tuturu then surviving. He could not have been a trustee for dead people, nor could dead people be owners of a reserve made after their death. Hamuera Karaitiana objected to the contention set up by Mr. Fraser. Witness (to Mr. McDonald): Kawana Hunia had no right to this land by occupation. I have not seen his cultivations. Kemp has a right here. I have seen his cultivations and house here. I remember giving evidence before the Boyal Commission. I was instructed by you to give the evidence I then gave. You sent Buka Hanuhanu for me. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 304 to 308, read.] I admit that I said 3,000 acres was to be allotted to Warena; you instructed me to say so, and said that if I did not all the land would go to Kemp under the deed of release, and that if Kemp died it would go to his successors. Ido not admit that I told lies. It was true that 3,000 acres were offered to Warena, but nothing came of it. I said what I did because you told me if I gave that evidence the Boyal Commission would give the land to the people. 1 consider that I was justified in saying what I. did. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 307, 308, 309, and 310, read.] I remember giving that evidence. I said that Muaupoko agreed to the 3,000 acres for Warena. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 311 to 313, read.] Those are my replies. The tribe agreed to Warena having his land in southern part, but, as Wirihana and Warena made unreasonable demands, the matter was never settled. Wirihana wanted the 3,000 acres for Warena only, the Hunia family to go with the tribe. This the tribe refused to accede to. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 316 and 317, read.] I admit having given those replies. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 320, read.] I was mistaken about that. I followed Waata, and repeated what he said. Kemp intended No. 6 for the rerewaho. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 321, read.] That was a mistake also. I did not hear that Kemp made the proposal. I was misled by Waata's evidence. I did not hear Kemp make any such proposal. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 322, read.] Ido not remember Kemp saying that the rerewaho and the tribe were to have No. 11 if they would consent to it. I heard Waata say it, not Kemp. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 323, read.] I admit having said that. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 324, read.] That is correct. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, question 325, read.] I admit having said that. [Horowhenua Commission, page 276, questions 326 to 332, read.] I remember giving those replies. I have given my explanation about them. I consider that the claims of Arikihanara are satisfied by the award to him in No. 3. Hamiora Potau has no right at all. Hapimana Tohu died before 1886. The tribe considers that those who died before the land was set apart should not share. Haruru-ki-te-rangi : Let him be left under Kemp. Henare Mahuika :No occupation ;he died in the south. Hereora died before 1886. Herewini Bakautihia has had sufficient on the'mountains. Heta Matakatea, Heta te Whata, and Himiona Taiweherua died before 1886. Hori te Mawae has had as much as he is entitled to. Hori Muruahi: No occupation. Ema te Whango died before 1886. The tribe have decided a long time that those who died before 1886 should not come into No. 11. This would not prevent Ema te Whango's descendants corning in. I did not know yesterday that Ema died before 1886, Emeri Whakawa and Matene Pakauwera have received sufficient. Matenga Tinotahi died before 1886. Matiaha Mokai: No right. Merehira te Marika died before 1886. Merehira Tohu, Merehira Waipapa, Porana Muruahi, Pirihira te Whata, and Peti Uku have had sufficient. Eewiri te Whiumairangi, Te Bangirurupuni, and Biwai te Amo died before 1886. Batima Potau has had sufficient. Boreta Tawhai died before 1886. Bora Tohu has had sufficient. Tamati Maunu died before 1886. Tamati Muruahi has had sufficient. Tiaki Tikara, Tamati Taopuku, and Wirihana Tarewa died before 1886. Waata Tamatea: No right by occupation. Watarawi te Hau and Waitere Kakiwa died before 1886. Wiki Keepa has had sufficient. Te Ahuru Porotene has had sufficient; no occupation here. Hana Bata has never lived here permanently; only came here a short time ago. Mii Maunu died before 1886. Pere Korana :No right here. Pehira Tuwharetoa :No right here. Kawana Hunia's children and grandchildren have no right here. I admit Himiona Kowhai's right. Ihaka te Bangihouhia died before 1886—at least, I believe so. If he had not died he would not have had any right to No. 11, because he had not occupied. Inia Tamaraki had no right here by occupation. Petera te Ha died before 1886. Pirihira te Bau has had sufficient. Ido not know whether she was dead in 1886 ; she had rights in No. 11, but is now dead. Paranihia Biwai has a right to No. 11 from her father. Bihipeti Tamaki and Bia Baikokiritia have had sufficient. It was agreed in 1886 that No. 11 was for the permanent occupants of it then alive. It was arranged by the people in Palmerston. I was there and heard it. There was no writing that I know of. ihaia Taueki spoke about it in the barn. I do not remember who else spoke. I was present when Ihaia spoke ; he said that this land was to be for the permanent residents on it. Kemp confirmed it. After consideration it was decided by the tribe that the names of all those who were dead should be excluded. This was settled at Horowhenua afterwards. Rawiri Rota asked the Court to allow him to examine the witness on the new evidence given by her. Wi Kiriwehi and Hamuera Karaitiana also wished to examine the witness. The Court stated that, if the clients of any of the agents were affected by anything in the new list furnished by Mr. Fraser, they would be allowed the privilege of examining the witness. Raniera te Whata asked for permission to set up a separate case, as Mr. Fraser had objected to some of his relatives. Mr. Fraser objected to Baniera withdrawing without notice to him. It had been arranged that Baniera should be called as a witness. The Court said that, as Baniera was to be called as a witness, there was no occasion for him to set up a separate case,

G.—2a

118

The Court said, in reply to Wi Kiriwehi and Hamuera Karaitiana, that they could only question the witness as to those of their clients whom Mr. Fraser had not objected to until this morning. Witness (to Mr. McDonald) : Tamati Maunu had a sister, Hinerangi. Heni Wairangi is her daughter. None of Wairangi's children are in Ngatiapa lands. We were put in Ngatiapa lands by the people there. We did not ask to be put in. We were not put in because Tamati Maunu lived there permanently ;it was because we had ancestral rights. Only Hariata and I were put in. Ido not know why Ngatiapa left out the children of Hinerangi. I suppose they put us in because we happened to be there. Kemp had no house here in 1886, but he often came here to the tribe. Tanguru had kaingas and mahinga here. Ido not know when Tanguru died, but my children were born before his death. He was dead in 1886. Kemp had a house and pa at Pipiriki in 1870. Hunia had no house at Pipiriki that I know of. The house that Hunia lived in was built by Bewiri Whiumairangi. Kemp's was built by Heta. [Vol. 1, pages 265 and 267, and vol. 2, page 1, Kiritotara's evidence, read.] That evidence is true. Pipiriki was the pa of our ancestors. She was right in saying that it was the pa of Kemp and Hunia, but Muaupoko built it at Kemp's direction. Her evidence touching the driving off the sheep is correct also. [Vol. 1, page 266, Kemp's evidence : " Pipiriki is a fighting-pa, built by Hunia and me."] That is true, but it was his tribe that built it. Kemp and Hunia both came to Pipiriki. .The pa belonged to Muaupoko. Kemp gave instructions to Muaupoko to prepare the timber for it. Kupe was built first. Hunia arrived after house was erected. He stayed in it. Hunia sent some timber (scantling), which was put in between the other posts. Kawana Hunia afterwards built a pataka at Otaewa. Wiki Pua is the only person I know of who has lived in it. Kemp has a right to No. 11 through the occupation of his father, followed by his own at Pipiriki. Bora Korako had no house here in 1886. She has had sufficient. Noa Tawhati, Unaiki, Taare Matai, Taare Hereora had houses here. Ido not remember when Taare Matai came. I think it was before 1886. All the shares in this land should be equal. Makere te Bou had a house here in 1886. She has always lived here. Went to South Island, and returned. Oriwia Mitiwaha, Hera Tupou, and Hopa Heremaia had houses here in 1886. All these should have equal shares. Every one should be equal. Henare Hanuhanu, Noa te Whata, and Baniera te Whata had houses here in 1886. At times Baniera went to Wanganui. Lived there a considerable time. His father always lived here. His house was called Kapuarangi. Motai Taueki had a house here in 1886. He lived here permanently after he returned from Wairarapa; long before 1873. Died here. Wiremu Matakatea had house here in 1886; he is at Parihaka now. Hoani Puihi has lived here permanently. Kingi Puihi was born here. Hiria Amorangi has lived here permanently. Kerehi Mitiwaha : Permanent resident. Hone Tupou, Peti Kohu, Hopa te Piki, Ngariki te Baorao, Winara te Baorao, Ani Kanara te Whato, Kingi te Patu, Hori te Pa, and Bangimairehau had houses here in 1886. Teoti te Hou had no house here in 1886, but he lived with Hori te Pa. Ido not remember whether he was here in 1886 or 1890. To Rawiri Rota : Ido not remember whether Hereora was at Court of 1886; I think she was dead. I believe all the hapus agreed that No. 11 should be set apart for the living ahika. I cannot give names of individuals. Noa Tawhati, Unaiki, and Taare Hereora joined in the deliberations of the tribe when this case came on. Ihaia Taueki was the only one I heard say at Palmerston that No. 11 should be for the living ahika. I did not hear him say that his sister Hereora should be excluded from No. 11, or that she should be confined to the hill block. He did not say that Te Hapimana Tohu should be confined to the hill block. It was the tribe who decided that the names of those who were dead should not be put into No. 11. They discussed the matter when we were living at the pa, some time during the present year, before this Court commenced, and after. Matai and Te Baraku did not take part in the discussion. It was Makere who proposed that the rerewaho should be admitted into No. 11. I approved of her proposal. I remember our selling some trees on No. 11 to Mr. Bartholomew. We received some money for the trees. Hema Henare, Kerehi Tomo, and I received £40. There may be a balance due for the timber lying in the bank. Ido not know. I believe £10 of it was paid to Mr. Fraser ; the balance was spent on behalf of the tribe. I cannot give particulars ; Kerehi can. We did not inform the descendants of Hereora that the money had come into our hands. We also received money for flax. I do not know how much or what was done with it. The people gave me £61 to take to Kemp in Wellington ; that is all I know of. To Hamuera Karaitiana: Hema Henare, Hori te Pa, Kerehi Tomo, Bangimairehau, Hoani Puihi, Makere, Ani Kanara, Tiripa Taueki, Hariata Tinotahi, Mereana Matao, Bawinia Matao, and others agreed to deceased owners being excluded from No. 11. I agreed also. We did not abandon the rights of our ancestors. I am willing that my dead should be confined to No. 3. Ido not know that any of the descendants of Matenga Tinotahi took part in our discussions. Himiona Taiweherua was not represented, nor Tiaki Tikara. Ido not say that the tribe may have a right to decide the ownership of this land. Manihera te Bau has no right here; he has had enough. Our proposal is that Wirihana Tarewa's share should be confined to No. 3, and that his children should come into No. 11; other deceased owners to be treated in the same way. The Court adjourned till the 14th instant.

Levin, Wednesday, 14th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Bawinia Ihaia cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Sir W. Buller said, before commencing to examine the witness, he wished to remark that he considered he had been affronted yesterday by the manner in which the Court had pointedly

119

G.—2a.

addressed him in regard to the matter to which attention had been drawn about the manner in which the witness was being examined by Mr. A. McDonald. Mr. A. McDonald asked the Court to take notice of the remarks made by Sir W. Buller— that his witnesses had been induced by him (A. McDonald) to make false statements before the Boyal Commission. He desired to take this opportunity of absolutely repudiating this assertion. The Court stated, in reply to Sir W. Buller, that there was no intention to affront him in what was said. The remark was a general one, and did not refer specially to the matter then under notice, but to the fact that a commotion was frequently made by either one side or the other when any matter of importance was being elicited. The Court had referred to this kind of action before, and on this occasion was only referring to it in general terms, and did not intend its remarks for any one in particular. Sir W. Buller said he was quite satisfied with the explanation made by the Court that the remarks were not made to him in particular, but he had considered so at the time, as he was on his feet when the Court made the remarks he complained of. The Court stated that neither counsel nor agents could allege that they had been treated discourteously at any time by the Court. The demeanour of the Court had tended, if anything, to allow too much latitude, but it was felt that it was better to follow that course than to be continually interrupting or interfering with the proceedings. Mr. Fraser stated that he had no complaint to make as to the attitude of the Court—in fact, he had been surprised himself occasionally at the latitude allowed him. Witness (to Sir W. Buller) : I was one of those who signed your retainer to appear for the tribe before the Boyal Commission. I gave evidence yesterday as to what I said before the Commission. You have not spoken to me about the evidence I gave before the Boyal Commission. Part of the evidence I gave before the Commission was true; some of it was not true. As I said yesterday, Mr. McDonald drew me into his office. When he got me into his office he talked to me. In consequence of what he said to me I gave evidence before the Commission. I said what he told me to say. I did not know whether it was true or false. Bahira and Buka were with me. Buka came for me. Some of the evidence I gave before the Commission was true, some false. Mr. McDonald said, "Kuamate koutou i a Te Keepa " ("If Kemp dies the land will go to his successors"). He also spoke of the deed of release, and told me that we would suffer an injury on account of that deed. It was in consequence of what Mr. McDonald said to me that I gave evidence before the Commission adverse to Kemp. I know now that there is nothing in the deed of release to injure the tribe. I now wish the evidence I gave adverse to Kemp wiped out of my evidence. Buka Hanuhanu and Bahira Wirihana were with me in Mr. McDonald's office when he told me what to say in giving evidence. I heard Hoani Puihi give his evidence in this Court. I heard him say that Mr. McDonald had instigated him to give false evidence before the Native Land Court in 1890 and 1891. Sir W. Buller asked to be allowed to put in Judge Scannell's notes of the proceedings. The Court said that those minutes were before the Court. Witness (to Sir W. Buller) : Pipiriki was named after an ancestor of Matene Pakauwera and Waata Tohu. I was present at the meetings at Palmerston in 1886. I remember what was done about No. 11 at those meetings There were speeches made about Horowhenua Lake and the land surrounding it. All the Muaupoko were present at the discussions about No. 11. I took part myself. A decision was come to by the tribe about No. 11 before we went into Court. Kemp was present, and took a leading part. The decision was come to outside the Court. The end of the discussion was that Kemp returned it to his tribe, Muaupoko—those of them who had ahika. The tribe gave it to Kemp to take care of for them. There was nothing said at the meeting that I heard about putting in any other name. Kemp's name was the only one I heard. I did not hear any suggestion that Warena's name should be put in. If Hoani Puihi said in the Court of 1891 that the tribe agreed outside the Court that Warena's name should be put in he stated what was not true. The tribe did not agree to Warena's name. I was present at all the meetings. I did not hear any one suggest that Warena's name should go in. All the tribe were opposed to Warena. I was in the Court when No. 11 was called on. I did not hear till after the Court of 1886 that Kemp had put Warena's name in the certificate for No. 11. I was in Court when some of the people went into a side-room. I was one of those who went. Kemp held a paper in his hand in the Court, and said, " Let us go into the room." When we entered the room Kemp said, " Let the toenga of this land be given to Ihaia to divide among the tribe." Wirihana Hunia was present, and said., "I will not consent." I asked what objection there could be to the old man being appointed trustee for the land. I did not hear Warena's name mentioned in the room. Wirihana Hunia was there, Warena was not. It was Wirihana who objected to Ihaia. I came out of the room after that. Kemp did not tell us what was written on the paper. I left the Courthouse with Makere and others. It was not till long afterwards that I heard Warena's name was in the certificate. The tribe did not approve of it. [Judge Scannell's notes, vol. xxii., page 116, evidence of Paki te Hunga, read :" I remember Court of 1886," &c] That is false. It was not agreed that Kemp and Warena were to be trustees. Sir W. Buller read evidence to first question and answer, page 119, " That evidence is false; the tribe objected to Warena; his name was never suggested at our meetings. The tribe wanted Kemp's name put in." Be-examined by Mr. Fraser. Witness : Eia's sister Bamari came here to live when she married Hopa, who is an ahika. She went away to Bangitikei, and died there. Bia has a canoe on the lake. It is hers now. It was brought here on account of her relatives being here. She does not use it; her relatives do— Ani Kanara and others. Mere Mionga brought food to Kupe from Bangitikei; she brought it to eat

GL—2a

120

because she had no food here. I said in reply to Mr. McDonald that Hunia lived at Kupe. It was only for three or four weeks, after which he returned to his home at Bangitikei. Hunia built his pataka here to store his fencing-wire in, when Muaupoko refused to allow him to erect his fence, and he and Te Paki were prosecuted for assault (1879). To Assessor : The reason Ihaia bade farewell to his land in 1886 was that he had been put up on the mountains. It was Kemp's own suggestion that the land should be given back to Ihaia Taueki. Kemp knows what he meant by the suggestion. Probably he made it because Ihaia Taueki and his family had been the permanent occupants of it. Ihaia Taueki did not take part in the discussion about deceased owners, although he was in the building; some of his descendants did. The proposal that the land should be apportioned equally was not submitted to Ihaia Taueki. Taare Hereora and Unaiki-Taueki took part in our discussions about deceased owners, and as to the relative interests. Ido not know how Pariri derived her right to this land. I suppose from Hamua, because his descendants came here. Ido not know why they came here. I have heard of Te Pou-o-temou. It was put in to indicate the depth of water in the stream. It was not a rahui. I have & papa tutaki at Otawhaowhao. I have not mentioned this before. Te Taumata-o-te-Uamairangi was not a point on a boundary. It was so named because Te Uamairangi used to sit there and look out to sea. Taueki did not lay down a boundary between him and Te Whatanui. Taueki did not live south of Hokio ; he lived at the pa. Ihaia Taueki had a house at Kouturoa after we married ; Tamati Maunu lived there. It was not because Taueki had given the land south of Hokio to Whatanui that he did not live there. The difficulty between Whatanui the elder and Muaupoko was the attempt by Te Whatanui to sell some of the land. The next trouble was when Whatanui Haua put sheep at Weraroa, and Muaupoko drove them off. The third dispute arose through Whatanui Tutaki leasing the land south of Hokio. The Muaupoko objected, because Whatanui had no right to the land. He allowed Muaupoko to participate in the rent, and they withdrew their objection. They also, as a mark of friendship, permitted Whatanui to take part in lease north of stream. The leases expired without further trouble. No one assisted Muaupoko to resist Te Whatanui. The Muaupoko burnt Watene's houses as a protest against assertion of right to the land by Ngatiraukawa. They also destroyed Ngatiraukawa crops at Mahoenui. Kemp instructed Muaupoko to take the action they did. He gave the instructions once from Wanganui, and again here. Kawana Hunia was arrested for burning the house at Bakauhamama. It was a house used by Tamai-anewa ma when eel-fishing. Biwai, Hapimana, and Karaitiana were with him. Kawana Hunia and Te Paki took part in burning houses at Kouturoa. I have already said, in reply to questions, that Hunia had no houses or cultivations on this land. Muaupoko had no houses at Takapukaiparoro when I was a young woman. Te Paki built a house there. Tamati Maunu had one on the opposite side of the bush. Muaupoko have cultivated at Otawhaowhao. Their house was at Te Wai-a-hikapuku. Muaupoko had no houses at Mahoenui when I was young, but they went there to maintain their boundary. The Ngatiraukawa had houses at Mahoenui at time we pulled their crops, not after. Muaupoko had houses there after that. There were no houses between Waiwiri and Mahoenui, but we used to go there. Ngatiraukawa also went there to hunt for their pigs. It was in 1873 that we came into full possession of the southern part of this land. The occupation of Muaupoko was at one time limited to land surrounding Horowhenua Lake. It was owing to the exertions of Muaupoko and their chiefs that they secured the southern part of the block. Manihera te Bau did not take part in burning houses, but he gave evidence for Muaupoko in the Native Land Court. I consider his claims have been satisfied by what he has already been awarded in No. 3. I consider Kemp is entitled to share in No. 11; he is the chief of Muaupoko, and his father occupied. Kawana Hunia is not entitled to anything for burning houses I (Muaupoko) did not tell him to do it. It was Tamati Maunu who told me that Tairatu went to Arapaoa, and that he died there. Ido not know where Te Kirituamango died. Do not know that he went to Wanganui, I heard that Te Horapoto died here, Kerehi te Mitiwaha sworn. Witness : I live at Horowhenua. lam one of the certificated owners of Horowhenua Block. I claim an interest in No. 11 over the whole block. I have heard the evidence of Bawinia Ihaia as to the ancestors who had a right to this land. I confirm her evidence on that point. I heard Bawinia giving my genealogy from Pariri and Te Bongopatahi; she gave it correctly. I am a descendant of Puakiteao and Te Ngarue. I am also a Ngaitamarangi. Temou was the husband of Puakiteao. I claim from this as well as the others I have mentioned. Temou = Puakiteao ! i i Nohokino = Otiroo Te Riunga Makehu = Te Marangai (of Ngatirongopatahi) lam not a descendant of Te Biunga. lam of Potangotango. Potangotango = Tokai (of Ngatiapa) Hinetahi = Rangitomokia (of Rangitane) I Porihariha = Mango (of Ngaitamarangi) i n Tomo = Kaiatua Muruahi I I Kerehi Mitiwaha Waata and others

121

Gγ:— 2a

I can trace my descent from Te Ngarue I Huikirangi Muriwhakaroto I Piro = Ariari (of Wanganui) Te Ikawhiri = Hikapirau (of Pariri) Hengahenga (See Rawinia's whakapapa) These are my ancestral claims to this land. My ancestors and elders from Te Ngarue down to myself have occupied this land. Te Piro had a younger brother, Te Arahi, and a sister, Te Hauiti. I cannot trace their descendants. Te Ikawhiri had younger brothers and sisters, but I cannot trace them. I am not skilled in genealogies. My ancestors and elders on the Puakiteao and Te Mou line down to myself have occupied this land. There were no divisional boundaries between my ancestors; they owned in common. The alleged boundary set up by Wirihana Hunia's and Bihipeti Tamaki's cases had no existence. I never heard it before. I never heard of any boundary between Whatanui and Taueki. I have only heard of Baumatangi. I was born at Waipata, where my parents were living at the time. We afterwards lived at Karapu, another pa of mine. I have lived continuously at Horowhenua up to the present time. I have attended the meetings of Muaupoko in connection with this land. I have not heard the alleged boundary between Pariri and Te Bongo discussed at those meetings. I have never heard of the boundary which Wirihana Hunia says was laid down by Te Bangihikaka of the land he conquered from Ngatikokopu. [Mr. Fraser reads boundary as given by Wirihana.] That boundary has never been discussed at our meetings. The Ngatikokopu did not own the land within those boundaries. I heard Eawinia's evidence as to cause of quarrel between Te Piro and Ngamaihi. Her account of the quarrel was correct. I never heard that Te Bangihikaka gave the lands described to Tairatu. It was owned by many people. Te Pariri and Bongopatahi acquired their rights here by occupation. I heard in previous Courts that they obtained their right from Tupatunui, but it is not true. Tupatunui lived further north. [Vol. 13, page 254, Wirihana's evidence :" I claim from Pariri. I have not heard who occupied this land before Pariri."] Ido not know who occupied before Pariri. [Vol. 13, p. 272, Wirihana's evidence : " Taitoko was partly related to Ngatiapa. Ido not think Hoani Puihi's evidence is correct that Taitoko was the take through whom Pariri claimed."] I never heard where Ngataitoko lived. I heard Ngataahi's evidence as to Te Wharetutaki-o-te-Biunga. She was correct. I have heard it from the elders. Some of Te Biunga s descendants lived at Papaitonga ; others further south. Those of them who are in my case have lived permanently at Horowhenua. I heard Eawinia's evidence as to the occupation of the people before the Court under the iwi nui. It was correct; I confirm it. I heard the evidence of Bawinia as to the peace-making, and the nature of the occupation of the people afterwards. I was at Palmerston in 1886, and attended Muaupoko meetings. [Vol. 13, page 263, Wirihana's evidence: " I heard that all Muaupoko agreed to give their interests in this land to Kemp and Warena," &c] That is not true. [" The agreement was made out of Court, and when it was brought into Court it was still agreed upon."] That is not true either; the people did not agree to it. ["I understood that the tribe was to go into the 11,000 acres. Kemp told them that this was so. This land is 52,000 acres; this land commencing from the railway down to the sea," &c] I did not hear that. I could not have attended that meeting. I did not hear Kemp say in Palmerson's house at Palmerston that the tribe should not go into No. 11. The tribe did not agree that they should not go into No. 11. Kemp did not say that the land was for him and Warena only. I was not at any meeting where Muaupoko agreed to give up their rights in No. 11 to Kemp and Warena. I did not hear Warena's name mentioned at the meetings about No. 11 outside the Court. [Vol. 13, page 264, Wirihana's evidence :" It was arranged in Mr. Palmerson's house that Warena's name should go in."] That is not true. I was in Court when No. 11 was applied for. The application was made that Kemp only should be the trustee. Wirihana said Warena's name should be put in. The tribe objected, but Kemp said, " Let the young man go in." This was in a side-room. Ngataahi asked what objection there was to Ihaia Taueki. Kemp said Warena was a good young man, and might be put in. The people got angry, and went out. I knew at that Court that Warena's name was put in with Kemp's. I did not return into the Court, nor did Makere. I remember the Boyal Commission sitting here. I gave evidence several times. Mr. McDonald did not approach me before I gave evidence the last time. [Horowhenua Commission, page 272, question 149, read.] I admit that. [Question 150 read.] I remember saying that. [Questions 151 and 152, and replies, read.] I remember giving that evidence. [Question 153, and reply, read.] I said that. [Question 154, and reply, read.] I remember making that reply. [Questions 155 and 156, and replies, read.] I gave those replies. The reason I gave the replies I did was that I heard that Mr. McDonald told Makere that the people would be prejudicially affected by the deed of release, and that if Kemp died the land would go to his successors. That is why the people gave different evidence. I gave the evidence I did because I was pouri. It was untrue. I would like it wiped out as being incorrect. I gave it because I was told that if Kemp died the land would go to his successors and not to the people. Cross-examined by Wiremu Kiriwehi. Witness : Temou and Puakiteao both had rights to this land. Ido not know whether they were related, or whether Pariri was related to either or both of them. I heard Bia give her evidence. Her ivhakapapa was correct. She has a right by ancestry, but has never lived here.

16— G. 2a.

Gh—2a

122

Her ancestors lived here. It is true that Bia sent a canoe here. Her relatives use it. I never heard that Ngapuhou and Te Waewae, her brothers, were buried here, or that they were born here. Bamari, the younger sister of Bia, married Hopa. Himiona fetched her here. They had three children, who all died. The Court adjourned till the 15th instant.

Levin, Thursday, 15th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Kerehi Mitiwaha's cross-examination by Wi Kiriwehi continued. Witness : It is true that Bia Baikokiritia contributed £50 towards costs incurred in connection with investigation of title to Horowhenua in 1873, but we returned £200 to Ngatiapa. The money was handed to Hamuera Baikokiritia. Noa took it to him. Bia brought a ton of flour to Kupe meeting. She brought it for her own use, as she had no food here. She may have brought it because her ancestors had a right, but neither she nor her mother lived here. All the visitors who came to Kupe meeting brought food. Ngatiraukawa, Ngatiawa, and Ngatikahungunu did not bring food. We entertained them not because they had any right to the land ; they had none. Ngatiraukawa were asserting a right. Bia Baikokiritia sent a second canoe here. Ani Kanara and her brother have to pay for it. Bia was wrong in saying that Te Namuiti Pa belonged to Ngatiwhano ; It belonged to another hapu. Karapu was the Ngatiwhano pa. Konihi lived at Namuiti with her husband. Ido not agree with Hoani Puihi that Bia has ahika because she has presented food to Muaupoko, and has attended the Courts about this land. If Bamari had ahika her rights should not go to Bia. Bamari went away to Bangitikei and died. She had no ahika. Her husband was her ahika. Bamari did not live in her ancestors' kaingas, or use their mahingas. She used her husband's cultivations. Bia's mother married a Bangitikei man; she was not taken there as a taurekareka. Te Whakaaturangi did not go to Arapaoa with Kotuku. I do not know whether Tukoko went. Whakaaturangi went to Bangitikei with her husband. Hopa te Piki went to Arapaoa. He returned here in 1846, and has lived here ever since ; therefore I admit his right. I agree to his having equal shares with me, as the tribe have expressed a wish that all should share equally. I do not know whether Bia's near relatives, Ani Kanara ma, deny her right; I do. Himiona Hopu had rights to this land; he was a chief. Ariki Baorao and Ani Kanara should succeed; they are his relatives who live on the land. Bia should not participate, because she has not lived here; nor should Bamari, who returned to Bangitikei, and died there. Bia Baikokiritia has presented food to Muaupoko, but return presents have been made to her. I cannot name any other outsider who has presented food to Muaupoko. I derive equal rights from Pariri and Puakiteao. Tomo and Muruahi had rights to this land through their father, Porihariha. I agree with Bawinia that Waata Muruahi's brothers have no right; they have never lived here. Waata lives here, and has revived the rights of his father. The people who went away with the tai-tai nunui and never returned have lost their rights, but those who returned and lived here regained theirs. It was Kemp who put Warena into No. 11, not the people ; they objected. We did nothing further with regard to No. 11 after Kemp put Warena in. I do not remember any meeting in connection with No. 11 after the order was made for it. I have not attended any meeting at which it was suggested that No. 11 should be for living ahika only, but there may have been a meeting at which such proposal was made. Ihaia Taueki took part in our discussions outside the Court in 1886 before No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena. Kemp said that the land should be vested in Ihaia as trustee. Ihaia urged that the toenga of his land should be returned to him; it was not agreed to. I did not hear Ihaia say anything else. I consider that my evidence as to what Ihaia said is in accord with that of Bawinia. All the Muaupoko use the canoe sent here by Bia. Turuki's name is in the certificate. She had no right here. She was a Ngatiapa. Whatever claim she may have had has been amply met by the award made to her in No. 3 (105 acres). Her cultivations were not on that block. None of us have cultivated there. Turuki cultivated on No. 11. Makere is connected with Ngatiapa, and so is Bawini, but they are Muaupoko also. Turuki was not. I admit that she lived here a long time. Her first husband was a tamaiti whangai brought from Ngatikahungunu; her second husband was a Muaupoko. Te Umutawa-o-Pariri is a tohu of Pariri on No. 11. She also had a, papa tutaki at Otawhaowhao. Cross-examined by Bawira Bota. Witness : The tribe selected me as one of those to give evidence on their behalf. I am giving evidence on behalf of all whose rights we admit. All the persons we admit are descendants of one or more of the ancestors I have named as having rights to this land. We first set up Pariri as one of our ancestors for this land in 1890 and 1891. I told you in Palmerston in 1890 that Pariri had no right to this land, but it was a question of chieftainship then between Kemp and Wirihana Hunia. Temou had rights in this land. Te Biunga, Buatapu, and Potangotango also had rights. Their descendants who remained here have rights also. Te Beti was apa on this land. It was attacked because the occupants of it took the eels out of our ancestors' hinakis. Horapoto and Potangotango had a quarrel, and the latter was ducked in the weir. Tireo attacked the Ngataikaka (occupants of pa), a hapu of Ngatikahungunu. Te Ngana-o-tu was their chief. The pa was taken, and the people of the land caught eels without molestation afterwards. Te Pou-o-temou was erected after the fight. Tireo was like a general; he went about fighting in

123

G.—2a

different parts of the country. No one attempted to remove Te Pou-o-temou ; it was put in by the owners of the land and Hokio Stream. Buatapu ma, Pariri, and Te Bongo were at Horowhenua at the time; they did not object to the erection of Te Pou-o-temou. The descendants of Te Ngarue and Te Horapoto have always worked the eel-pas in Hokio Stream, from the lake down to the sea. Tinakirunga is the only descendant of Potangotango who I have heard worked the eel-pas in Hokio Stream ;we are the descendants of that ancestor. Tinakirunga was eldest child of Potangotango ; Hinetahi next : then Tiaki, Takoria, and Tapuwae ; Korehe was the last. Takoria's descendants have worked the Hokio eel-pas. Tuturi, the pa of Tinakirunga, is now in the possession of Ihaia. Korehe's descendants work the eel-pas, but not by right from Korehe. They get their right from Kotuku and Te Horapoto. I heard Kemp state his prima facie case. I admit the right of the ancestors he set up. I think he was wrong in saying that Te Paki had no ancestral right from Pariri. We have admitted the rights of Pariri. I was in Court when Bawinia gave her evidence; we called her to give evidence for us. I remember Bawinia giving evidence on our prima facie case. We arranged that she should do so. We knew the whakapapa she intended to give—her own whakapapa. We approved it, because she could not claim descent from Puakiteao. It is true that she was pouri when she gave her evidence. I admit the rights of the ancestors named by Bawinia in her evidence-in-chief. She told us she intended to claim a right from Pariri. Pariri had rights in this land; Te Korongawhenua had not; he came from the South. Bawinia may not have known that she would be called to give evidence on the day her grandchild died; I do not think she did. It was when the Kahiti notifying this Court were received that the suggestion was made that No. 11 should be for the living ahika only. All Muaupoko were here at the time. Some of Ihaia Taueki's children were present at our meetings. Ihaia Taueki was in a room adjoining that in which we met. Matai Porotene and Te Baraku Hunia were not at the meetings. It was decided by the people that the names of deceased owners should not be included in No. 11. It is true that Wirihana Hunia worked at Mairua as a boy, but he returned to Bangitikei to live. He went away when he was about the age that his son is now. He took part in the preparation of flax at Mairua in the way that a child would. I never heard from my elders that Wirihana Hunia was sent to Horowhenua by his father to be chief of Muaupoko. I am a descendant of Pariri. Tupatunui had no right here ; he lived at Taikoria. I never heard that Bangihikaka attacked and defeated Ngatikokopu at Horowhenua; he did not do it alone. All the hapus did—Ngatihine, Ngaiteao, Ngatipariri. Te Piro collected the war-party from these hapus. Ngatikokopu occupied the country between Waiarawa and Manawatu. The cause of the quarrel was Te Piro's tinder-stick, which Ngatikokopu had stolen. They were defeated, but not on this land. Most of them were killed. The remnant dispersed. The conquering hapus returned to Horowhenua. There was no boundary between them. Ido not know where the boundary was between them and Ngatikokopu. I cannot say whether the hapus Ngatihine, Ngaiteao, and Ngatipariri had fern-root grounds on this block; they had bird-snaring places. Koihoa was a birdsnaring place near the sea; it was a lagoon. My father caught birds there—ducks and teal. Ido not know the bird-snaring trees on inland part of block. I have heard of one on what is now Ngatihuia land. I have not heard of a bird-snaring place called Mounuwahine. I can give names of eel-pas on Hokio used by my ancestors and elders. Te Bipi-a-te-pourewa was an eel-pa of my ancestor where stream leaves lake, near Te Pou-o-temou. It was a Ngaitamarangi pa. My right to it is from Wahinepo. Waata and I are her living descendants. Himiona's statement that Muaupoko did not work Hokio eel-pas till 1886 is incorrect; we worked them long before that. I mean the pas on the lower part of the stream towards the sea. Ngatipariri and Ngaiteao were the hapus who did not work the pas; they got eels and shellfish out of the lake. Only the Ngatipariri and Ngaiteao who had intermarried with other hapus had right to use the pas. My right to do so came from Te Piro. The descendants of Ngarue had a right to use the pas. The descendants of Taueki used a pa called Tapuikumikumi; their right was not from Potangotango; it was from Pokohiwi, a Ngatihine, who married Bakuhanga, and had Turangi. Potangotango had no rights in Hokio Stream. I have never heard from my elders that he had. Ido not know which took place first, Tepou-o-temou or Te Whare-tutaki-i-Papaitonga. I knew when I gave my evidence before the Boyal Commission that I was saying what was false. I have already informed the Court why I gave that evidence. I heard that if I did, and Kemp was defeated, the Commission would give us the land. I gave the evidence I did yesterday of my own motion. My false evidence before the Commission was that I said that No. 14 formed part of No. 11. I admit the rights of the ancestors set up by Kemp in his prima facie case. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : I cannot trace genealogy beyond Te Mou, or say whether he first occupied this land when he married Puakiteao. Tireo, Te Biunga, Buatapu, and Potangotango occupied this land. Te Biunga lived at Papaitonga. Tireo was fond of travel; he wandered about. Sometimes he lived at Manawatu. Bangitane was his tribal name there. Some of his descendants have remained here; others went away to Tamaki and other places on the Manawatu Biver. I believe Manahi Paewai is a descendant of Tireo. I heard that Puakiteao had a post at Tamaki. Her descendants named it after her. It may have been Tireo who named it; I cannot say. Ido not know how Pariri and Te Bongo derived their rights to this land. I believe they acquired their rights by their own occupation. It was not because Pariri married Te Hukui that she came to this side of the range. Te Hukui's lands were at Otaki and Waikanae. Pariri was a Hamua from the other side of the range ; so was Hikaotaota. Ido not know why they came here. We arranged among ourselves that names of persons who died before 1886 should not come into No. 11. This was not carrying out Maori custom. It was done in the interests of the living owners. I have not heard that Te Aweawe came to Ngatihuia and asked them to return him the remnant of his land. I heard that Te Peeti came here to lay down a boundary. Te Aweawe only came to tangis; he did not

G.—2a

124

come to lay down a boundary. He had rights from our common ancestor at Manawatu; not here. He had ancestral right here, but none by occupation. He was a descendant of Tireo, and lived at Manawatu. Tanguru and Kemp are the descendants of Parianiwaniwa, who remained here. Ido not know that Te Aweawe lived at Wanganui. I never saw him there. Kemp lives at Wanganui now, and has rights there from his mother. Ido not know what ancestor Te Peeti claimed from in Manawatu, but he lived there. I heard Bawinia say that Maraea, Hanita Kowhai, and others were taken prisoners at Tokomaru; they were eel-fishing there. It is not the case that they went about with Te Aweawe, or that they fought together against Bauparaha. Ido not admit that Ani Kanara Tihore had any rights here. I saw her. She died here. I buried her. She cultivated with us at Te Waitahi, Poumaru, and Kumeroa. When she died her cultivations reverted to me; they were mine. She was older than I was when she died. She was a whaea of mine on our Bangitane side. She grew corn on my mahinga at Te Kawiu. She was a descendant of Parianiwaniwa, but had no right to this land. Ngarangiwhakaotia took part in our fights against Bauparaha; he was a Ngatirangi. Their lands were in the south. I do not know whether they were a hapu of Muaupoko. I cannot trace his Ngatirangi whakapapa, but I heard he was a Ngatirangi from the south. He did not come here because he married Bangahau. He went from Manawatu to (Mahurangi) Waikanae, and was murdered there; he did not go from here. The Muaupoko territory extended originally from Manawatu Biver to Porirua. Ngarangiwhakaotia came here to his relatives. It was Bangitane who were murdered at Mahurangi. There were some Muaupoko among them—Taiweherua and others. The Ngatiraukawa persuaded my elders not to go to Mahurangi. Tawhati-a-Tumata, Te Atua, and others were dissuaded by Te Whatanui from going. Bangitane insisted on going, and were murdered. I know Hoani Meihana. I have seen him here on visits. I never saw him cultivating on this land. In 1873 he took part in Court proceedings in connection with Tuwhakatupua. Kemp conducted the Horowhenua case. Hoani Meihana did not take any part. He is descended from the ancestors who owned this land. I know the greenstone " Manuka" found by Whatanui's people. It is mine. It was Ngarangiwhakaotia's. It was found at Te Watutua. It was not in Ngarangiwhakaotia's possession when it was lost; it was in charge of Wereta Pae. He hid it, and Whatanui's people found it when tbey were making a clearing. Te Whatanui returned it to Tame Tawhati. Wereta Pae was a Ngatirangi, and a relative of Ngarangiwhakaotia. That is how I account for his having " Manuka" in his possession. The Court adjourned till the 16th instant.

Levin, Friday, 16th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Kerehi Mitiwaha's cross-examination by Henare te Apatari continued. Witness : My parents did not go to Arapaoa with the koura mawhitiwhiti. Some of my elder relatives did—Kotuku, Noa, Tarakihi, and others. I have heard of Te Kaha, who married Huaki; he was a slave of Ngatikahungunu. Te Eangitomokia was not a child of his. Te Auraki was. Te Auraki Te Raorao lam not a descendant of Te Kaha; I am a descendant of Te Eangitomokia, who was a chief. I cannot give his genealogy. He was not a son of Te Huaki. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness: Tawhati-a-Tumata had rights in this land; so had his father before him. Those rights still exist. Makere has his cultivations. They were left to her. She is working them now. Te Kapa, Te Watutua, and Pukearuhe were his cultivations. These are all I know of. Mere Mionga was first child of Tawhati-a-Tumata ; she was by the first wife. Ido not know where she was born. I saw her at Turakina first; sometimes here. Her first husband was Te Hauparoa; she married him at Bangitikei, where he belonged. The first time I saw Mere Mionga she was grownup and had children. She lived permanently at Bangitikei, and died there. Her children and grandchildren have always lived there. They never came here until Horowhenua came before the Court. Ido not know why Mere Mionga went to Bangitikei, or why she married there. I do not know that her mother was a rangatira. Makere took care of Tawhati until he died. That is why I say that he left his rights to her. Ido not know that he made an ohaki, but he pointed out his cultivations to Makere. I saw him do it. The right of the ancestors in this land should go to their descendants who have occupied, not to those who went away. I cannot trace Buihi Wuunu from Te Arahi or Te Bangihiwinui. I claim this land for those who have held it. I have done so ever since Horowhenua came before the Court. I mean the Court of 1886. It was not stated in the Court that No. 11 was for the residents only, but we decided, outside the Court that it was. The permanent residents came to this determination at Palmerston, and afterwards here. It was finally decided here that those who had ancestral rights only without occupation should not come into No. 11. Bangimairehau was one of the first to propose it. I was another. There were no Europeans present. The tribe agreed. This was when the panui for this Court appeared. We did not inform Kemp or Warena. Kemp knows of our proposal. The persons who went away to the South Island and returned here to live retained their rights. Mere Mionga was given the

125

G.—2a

105 acres in No. 3in satisfaction of her claims. It was not so stated at the time. I am entitled to more than the 105 acres, because lam a permanent occupant of the land. Herewini Bakautihia has rights in this block. My children are among the rerewaho; they were omitted from the original certificate ; they derive their rights from their ancestors through me ; they have shares of their own in the rerewaho block. I consider they are each entitled to equal shares with myself. They will be entitled to my share when I die. I consider those who came to assist us in proving our claims to Horowhenua have been sufficiently compensated in No. 3. I did not see Pita, brother of Manihera te Bau, living at Horowhenua. Manihera te Bau assisted us to prove our claims to Horowhenua. Ido not know that he had any special knowledge of the take to this land, Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : I have lived at Horowhenua all my life. I have heard of the gift of land at Tirotiro by Te Bangirurupuni and Wereta to Hoani Puihi. Te Ngarue, Pariri, and Te Bongopatahi all had rights in Horowhenua. Te Bangirurupuni was a descendant of Te Bongo. Wereta and I are also descended from the same ancestor. I have not heard of any objection to the gift. Some of the descendants of Puakiteao had no right at Tirotiro. The descendants of Te Bongo cultivated there. There was no ancestral boundary. There was no boundary to the gift. I heard Bihipeti's prima facie case ; she has ancestral rights to the land. She married away, and never returned here until now. Her relatives have remained. Some have died here. Bihipeti was right in saying that her ancestors and elders cultivated here. Paranihia Biwai's ancestors and elders cultivated here. I have not heard that the descendants of Te Bongo and Pariri, as such, have rights to lands outside Horowhenua. The descendants of Puakiteao have rights at Manawatu and other places. I cannot name them. Tirotirowhetu is on the Horowhenua Block, near the coast. Tutohu is also on the Horowhenua Block. Patoetoe, Ohenga, Te Koropu, and Te Umu-tawa-a-pariri are all on Horowhenua, but there is no boundary on the Horowhenua Block. There are other portions of block where names of places are in a line from the sea to the ranges — Ngurunguru, Otawaware, Tirotiro, Te Motu-o-kaka, Te Kama, Kaiwha, Koputoroa, Te Arapaepae. I could give other illustrations. I say positively that there were no boundaries between my ancestors. I have already asked this Court to wipe out the evidence I gave before the Boyal Commission— that part of it which is incorrect. I said before the Commission that No. 14 should be treated as part of No. 11; that is the part I wish wiped out. I said it because I was told the Commission would give us the land. No. 14 is Kemp's. Our object before the Commission was to get it back into No. 11, because Ngatiraukawa refused No. 14, and No. 9, which is part of No. 11, was given them instead. I repeat that I gave the evidence I did because I was told that we should suffer loss if I did not, and that the land would go to Kemp's descendants if he died. My evidence was prompted by what Mr. McDonald had said with regard to No. 11. The tribe agreed upon the evidence that was to be given before the Commission. Bangimairehau, Makere, Waata, Muruahi, and myself arranged the evidence we were to give before the Commission—the first evidence. Mr. McDonald was not present. The evidence we arranged to give first was true, but we altered it when we were told of the effect of the deed of release. Bihipeti Tamaki is not entitled to share in No. 11, because she went away. She has received large interests in No. 3. Ido not know why she was put in the certificate of 1873. I knew her name had been put in. I did not object. Kemp put all the names in. We had nothing to do with it. I did not say in 1886 that Bihipeti had no right by occupation. I say so now that No. 11 is being dealt with. The proposal of the tribe is that none of those who died before 1886 should share in No. 11. The fact that Bihipeti has been appointed successor to several deceased owners did not influence us. Himiona te Hopu is not in the title. I said that Ariki was his nearest of kin, because I was asked the question. It is true that Ngatikokopu were conquered, but their land is now in possession of Ngatiraukawa. Te Piro was the Ngatihine chief; he led them in fight against Ngatikokopu. He went to Waitawa, and asked Te Bangihikaka to come and assist him. I am not a Ngatikokopu or a Ngatikura. Makere is connected with those hapus by ancestry. Tuturi eel-pa belongs to descendants of Potangotango. Pakihiwi and Bakuhanga both had rights to Tapuikumikumi eel-pa. They were descendants of Te Ngarue. I have not heard that they were connected with Ngaitaikaka or Ngatikokopu. Ido not know of any connection between Te Ngarue and those hapus. 1 do not know how the name Ngatikokopu originated. Kura is the name of an ancestor. The Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura land did not extend as far south as Horowhenua. There are a number of persons living here who are connected with those hapus, but they have no rights here as members of those hapus, and their rights here are through intermarriages with descendants of ancestors who owned this land. Ido not know which happened first, the conquest of Ngatikokopu or Te Whare-tutaki-o-te-Biunga. Te Bangihikaka lived after Te Biunga. I said in reply to Mr. Knocks that my children had a right to independent shares ; I do not care to express an opinion about other people's children. My wife has rights to this land as well as myself; our children derive rights from both of us. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : lam one of the principal persons of Mr. J. M. Fraser's clients (te iwi nui). lam the third witness for our party. I have told this Court that some of the evidence I gave before the Boyal Commission was untrue. I gave untrue evidence before the Commission in consequence of your having said, "Ka mate koutou ia Te Keepa, ka mate koutou ite Kirihipi, kite mate aTe Keepa ka riro te whenua i ana uri." Mr. McDonald explained that, although he did not remember having said these words to Makere particularly, or to any other person in particular, he had always said words to the same effect, and he said so still. Witness (to Mr. McDonald): There will be other witnesses called in support of the case of the iwi nui, besides me and those who preceded me.

G.—2a

126

Mr. McDonald asked the Court to strike out the evidence of this witness and the two who had preceded him, on the ground that they had admittedly committed perjury before the Boyal Commission. The Court said it was a matter for Mr. McDonald's consideration whether he continued to cross-examine the witness, but if the Court struck out the evidence of these witnesses it would have to strike out the evidence of some of his own witnesses. Witness (to Mr. McDonald) : I have not cultivated any more land in No. 11 since 1886 than I did before. Our ancestors occupied what is now the State farm. We have not, but it belonged to the permanent residents, although they did not cultivate it. No. 11 was specially set apart for the ahika in 1886—the living ahika, by which I mean the persons residing upon it who had ancestral rights. [Mr. McDonald reads Exhibit Aa, Boyal Commission.] Te Bangirurupuni died before 1886. I did not object to his name being included in list handed to Boyal Commission. There was no intention to exclude deceased owners then. The intention originated with ourselves since the Commission. Inia Tamarake had ancestral right. I did not object to him before Commission. I did not hear about a list of names being handed to Commission. Inia Tamarake went away to Bangitikei to live. He died there. Went to Bangitikei when he married, after Christianity. His father died long before. He took his mother to Bangitikei. Father buried here. We have agreed that Hunia has no claim here. The tribe oppose him ; so do I. We object to any one supporting Kawana Hunia's claim, but we would not contest his right to the land for that reason, if he had any. Our objection to Himiona Kowhai was that he said he had given the land to Warena. We instructed Mr. Fraser to object to Himiona. Himiona Kowhai has rights in this land (No. 11). Taueki did not start for the Waikanae feast (Mahurangi). He was at Horowhenua at the time. Taueki and many others suspected treachery. Whatanui and Taueki had made peace before the massacre. Whatanui went to Otaki after he made peace, and returned again after the massacre. I support Eawinia's statement that Taueki gave Whatanui Te Baumatangi and a small piece of bush only. Have heard of Noa and Hanita having purchased two eel-pas from Whatanui, who wished to take more than was given to him. The Muaupoko did not oppose the elder Whatanui, although they did not admit his right to all the Hokio eel-pas. The Muaupoko agreed to Whatanui's suggestion to sell the land south of Mahoenui, but the money was not paid at the time. Some years afterwards the land was sold to the Government. Neither Te Whatanui nor Muaupoko got any of the money. Kemp agreed to the payment of a sum of money to the descendants of Whatanui on account of the same land. The only sale we heard of was Te Wera-a-whango. It did not extend to Mahoenui. It is true that Whatanui gave Tamati Maunu £9 on account of lease of land south of Hokio. I divided it. I did not agree to the lease. Te Whatanui leased it about time Mahoenui boundary was laid down. He did it without right. The first lease of land north of Hokio was a riihi pokanoa. I signed it. The elders consented to Whatanui participating in that lease. Later on an agitation arose against Whatanui because of his grasping propensities. The object was to destroy his power. The Ngatiapa, Bangitane, Wanganui, and Ngatikahungunu came to Kupe to whakawa the Muaupoko troubles. Kawana Hunia and Muaupoko invited them to assemble. The meeting ended without result. Ido not know that Hunia said anything to Muaupoko after the meeting. Immediately after the meeting the Ngatiraukawa came to lay down the boundary at Kupe. Muaupoko disputed the boundary. Hunia had returned to Bangitikei. Kemp was away at the war. Hanita was dead. I never heard that Hunia obtained the lease of Horowhenua from Himiona's mother and gave it to Muaupoko with instructions not to admit Whatanui's rights to the land. The lease was in Iritana's box. Hunia never had it, nor did he give it to Muaupoko. It afterwards disappeared. I heard that Hunia got it. Hector McDonald kept the lease that we signed; all we had were the slips showing amount of rent due to each. We object to Hunia's claims to this land because all his ancestors are from the south. They lived at Pukehou. Kemp was right in 1873 in saying that Kawana Hunia took part in the raruraru about this land. [Vol. 1, page 40, Kemp's evidence: "Muaupoko heard that Whatanui had got the proceeds of the sale," &c] I remember that sale ;it was in connection with Manawatu lands. Tanguru, Taueki, Uenuku, Mahanga, Tomo, Hape, and Bakuraku went to Papangaio to receive the payment. Muaupoko received three guns, four casks of powder, and three spades. Te Whatanui and all Ngatiparewahawaha were there. I did not see Bangihouhia there. He was at Horowhenua. I do not know that Tanguru and Bangihouhia arranged that the goods should be fetched. Te Whatanui invited Muaupoko to go. [Vol. 1, page 41, Kemp's evidence: " Europeans now began to settle on north side of Manawatu," &c. Vol. 1, page 47, Kemp's evidence: " The Muaupoko and Whatanui leased some land," &c] Kemp's evidence is correct. The Court adjourned till the 17th instant.

Levin, Satueday, 17th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Kerehi Mitiwaha's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Noa Tawhati informed the Court that he intended to withdraw from Mr. J. M. Fraser's case. Mr. J. M. Fraser regretted that Noa Tawhati had found it necessary to express the intention to withdraw from his case. The Court said it was satisfied Noa's interest would be well protected, and that there was no occasion for him to withdraw.

127

a.— 2a

Witness (to Mr. McDonald): [Vol. 1, page 4, Kemp's evidence: " Hector McDonald's cows were shot by Muaupoko."] That is true. [" And after some years Hunia and I said, ' Drive the sheep off.' "] It was Kemp who sent us word to drive the sheep off. [" After this Muaupoko went with their European friends," &c] I did not see Hunia go. I did not go. [" They asked Kawana Hunia and myself to agree," &c] It is true that Muaupoko went to Wanganui to ask Kemp's permission to lease to Hector McDonald. [" We said, as Kawana and I had agreed, the sheep be kept on your own land only."] I did not hear that Hunia agreed. I know that Kemp did ; that is why the sheep were put on the land. [Vol. 1, page 48 : "On reaching Horowhenua we found Watene had gone to Kouturoa. Hunia was angry," &c] This is the first time I have heard that evidence. I did not hear Kemp give it. I heard of the burning of Watene's houses. [Evidence read to end of page 48.] I admit that that evidence is correct. We all took part in burning the houses, and Kemp instructed us to build the Pipiriki Pa. Kemp and Hunia were associated at that time, and working together for the good of the people. They were together at Pipiriki, and both gave evidence on our behalf when Horowhenua was before the Court. I have not heard since the opening of this case that one of our people approached you to make proposals. I knew in 1886 that Kemp and Warena held No. 11 as trustees. Kemp said they were trustees for the ahika of Muaupoko. I consider myself one of the ahika. I did not apply to either Kemp or Warena to allot me my portion, or to make out a list of names of the persons for whom they held the land in trust. Ido not know of any one having made any such application. I was of opinion that it was for Kemp to make out the list of ahika. [Exhibit Aa read to witness, Horowhenua Commission, page 315.] (1) Keepa te Bangihiwinui has a block of his own ; when he returns he will give his rights in No. 11 to the people. (4) Bewiri Whiumairangi had ahika. (5) Te Bangirurupuni has ahika. (8) Heta te Whata, (9) Wirihana Tarewa, (10) Inia Tamarake, (15) Tamati Maunu, (16) Ihaka te Bangihouhia, (17) Matene Pakauwera, (19) Himiona Taiweherua, (23) Biwai te Amo, (29) Heta Matakara, (30) Matenga Tinotahi, and (34) Petera te Ha died before 1886. (35) Tahana Muruahi and (36) Tamati Muruahi: No take. (42) Herewini Bakautihia and (43) Akuira Takapo died before 1886. (50) Arikihanara: No take. (51) Hapimana Tohu died before 1886. (52) Eparaima te Paki: Objected to. (64) Te Waata Bauihi te Hau :No take. (66) Harurukiterangi: Claim satisfied; no occupation. (69) Te Porana Muruahi and (71) Henare Mahuika: No take. (77) Te Waitere Kakiwa died before 1886. (89) Wiki Meiha Keepa : Claim satisfied; no occupation. (91) Hereora, (133) Pirihira te Hau, (105) Pirihira te Whata, (107) Wiki Hanita, and (108) Merehira te Marika died before 1886. (109) Bora Korako : Claim satisfied; no occupation. (114) Ema te Whango and (115) Boreta Tawhai died before 1886. (123) Merehira Tohu: Claim satisfied; no occupation. (129) Petite Uku died before 1886. (135) Emeri Ngawhakawa: Claim satisfied; no occupation. (101) Pirihira te Bau : Not sure when she died, before or after 1886. (12) Hoani Puihi is one of those we object to. (HO) Bihipeti Tamaki and (20) Pire Tikara we object to. Ido not remember hearing that list of names read out before the Commission. I did not sign Sir W. Buller's retainer, but I agreed to it. [Witness did sign it.] I may have forgotten Sir W. Buller acted for us before the Commission. I was present when list of names in Exhibit Aa was drawn up. I did not object then to the names I object to now. The attack made against Ngaitaikaka was a different conflict from that with Ngatikokopu. Ngaitaikaka was the first. The Ngaitaikaka had apaat Te Beti. I do not know whether it was fortified or not. Te Ngana-o-tu was their chief. Te Uamairangi's was a separate ope; they came as manuhiri. Ngataikaka came to take land. Te Baraku was wrong in saying that they were under Te Uamairangi. When Ngaitaikaka were attacked some escaped and returned to their own lands. Tapuikumikumi came to Kahukore from Pokihiwi and Bakuhanga, who were descendants of Te Ngarue. They became Ngatikokopu by intermarriage. Ngatikokopu had no right at Hokio. Ido not know whether Ngatikokopu were attacked before or after intermarriage. I cannot give the whakapapa showing the Ngatikokopu connection. I do not know whether Tairatu and Horapoto were brothers. I have heard it said that they were, and thai Tairatu was the elder. I have heard that Tairatu married Maewa, but Ido not know. Ido not know who Te Horapoto married. I have heard that Hariata Tinotahi is descended from Te Horapoto through Te Bau. Himiona Kowhai is of same descent; he is also direct descendant of Tairatu. Hariata is a member of our party, Himiona is not. I agree with Bawinia that Tairatu left this land, and lost all his right to it. He left because his slaves were killed, and he was afraid he would be killed too. He went at same time as Kotuku. I heard from those who returned from the south that Tairatu died there. Noa told me. He is dead now. Tairatu is not buried at Komakorau. If I had heard that he was I would say so. I have not heard that Kotuku's son was named Komakorau after his grandfather's burial-place. He was named Komakorau after the land. Komakorau is the name of the principal burial-place on this block. It is well known among the Muaupoko that Tairatu died in the South Island. It is not a newly invented story. I have heard of Taiweherua. Do not know what family he belonged to. I never heard that he was younger brother of Kotuku until now. The Court adjourned till the 19th instant.

Levin, Monday, 19th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Kerehi Mitiwaha's cross-examination by Mr. McDonald continued. Witness : I have heard that Taiweherua was one of the principal persons at the Karekare peace-making, but I did not know that he was from here. If I had known I would have said so.

G.—2a. 128 My memory is not influenced by a determination to know nothing in favour of your clients. I heard Eawinia's evidence as to Te Whare-tutaki-o-te-Eiunga. Te Eiunga wished to save the persons she shut in the house. Tokouru killed Pahuki at Waikanae and fled. Ngatirangi pursued him, and he came to Papaitonga. He turned inland from Ohau. The pursuers sent messengers along the beach to Potangotango ma at Horowhemia. They found Tokouru's people digging fern-root at Te Pito-o-pitorea, who also fled to Papaitonga. Tokouru, when pressed by Ngatirangi, ran into a swamp, and was killed. Meantime the Horowhenua ope went by Wheteriki to Waiwiri Lake, crossed the lake in canoes, and attacked the pa. Te Eiunga endeavoured to persuade her relatives to retire from the attack. Tokouru was a Eakeimanuhiri, as I heard they were in the pa with Te Eiunga. I heard that Eakeimanuhiri were a hapu of Ngatikahungunu. Potangotango ma would not be dissuaded by Te Eiunga; they continued the attack. When she shut the people in the house they remained at the entrance, but the persons she shut in were saved, and when the taua withdrew they were allowed to return to their homes on the East Coast, probably Wairarapa or Porangahau. They were the people of Potangaroa. The fight between Whatuiapiti and Muaupoko was a different fight. I cannot give particulars of it. Te Eiunga and Te Aitanga-a-whareao were the occupants of Papaitonga. Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were Te Aitanga-a-whareao. I do not know whether they were born at time of Wharetutaki. Their ancestors and elders were there. I do not know where Takare, Toheriri, and Paipai were born, but I heard that their tupunas were at Papaitonga. I do not know by what right they lived at Papaitonga, or by what right Te Eiunga lived there. Their descendants will know. I say positively that I did not hear Warena's name mentioned at the meeting of 1886. Notwithstanding the evidence of Hoani Puihi in 1891, I say positively that Warena's name was not mentioned in Palmerson's barn in my hearing. I first heard it mentioned in Court. The statement of Hoani Puihi that Warena's name was mentioned in the barn is untrue. [Vol. 13, pages 185, 186, Kemp's evidence: " I understood that I had the power to put in who I wished," &c] The land was in Kemp's hands as trustee, but he could not put in or keep out who he liked. He would have to consult the people, and abide by their decision. Kemp said that if the people sold in No. 3 they would get nothing in No. 11, but that was merely a warning. We were alarmed at the time, but it wore off, and people sold in No. 3. Kemp did not insist. We thought at the time that he could keep us out—that he could put in or keep out of No. 11 any one he chose; but it was understood that he would select those who were considered to be ahika. I considered at that time that the ahika were the people living permanently on the land. The ahika meant was the ahika as usually understood by Maoris, so far as I know. Our proposal is that parents and children should share alike. The children have occupied, and are entitled to share, in my opinion. The suggestion to exclude deceased owners from No. 11 originated in 1886, but was not considered until recently. It was only in the minds of the people in 1886. It was in my mind at that date. I do not know whether Kemp had thought of it. I do not know who built the Waipata Pa, but they were Ngatipariri. [Vol. 13, page 164, Kemp's evidence : " Waipata and Pukeiti were pas built about the time of Haowhenua."] I do not know that they were built at that time. I was born about time of Mahurangi murder. Kemp ought to know when the pas were built. I heard that Takue first built Namuiti Pa, but it was added to afterwards. He has no living descendants. Eangirurupuni was a Mokopuna. Tanguru added to it. I saw him. There were several additions made to it. I do not know Tuta Nihoniho. Te Paki retained him, and asked us to instruct him also. We said we would wait until we had seen him. I remember asking your advice in Wellington about a petition. It was presented to Parliament. I heard no more of it. A good many signed it. It was objecting to the 80 acres given to the Ngatiraukawa, and to the recommendation of the Commission that certain portions of the block should be acquired by the Crown. You recommended me not to have it presented to Parliament, but to wait. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : The reason I gave the evidence I did before the Commission objecting to deed of release and changing front about Papaitonga No. 14 was that I was told No. 14 would become part of No. 11. When I and the others changed front and stated what we did before the Commission we stated what was false. Knowing that No. 14 was Kemp's under the voluntary arrangement of 1886, I gave the evidence I did so that it should be included in No. 11, and come back to the people. I thought, as Ngatiraukawa had accepted No. 9, we might get back No. 14, although we knew that, when they accepted No. 9, No. 14 was awarded to Kemp for himself alone. It was after we heard what we did about the deed of release and other mate that we concocted false evidence. We were told that the Commission would give us both No. 14 and No. 11. If it had not been for my pouri over what I was told about the Kirihipi I would never have thought of taking No. 14 away from Kemp. Many of us were made pouri by what we heard about the Kirihipi. Makere, Waata, and I agreed that we should give false evidence before the Commission, so that we might get back No. 14. Prom 1886 up to time the Eoyal Commission sat I never heard any one complain of Kemp having No. 14. So far as I know, up to time we were made pouri all the people considered that No. 14 was Kemp's. From 1886 up to time of Commission I had never said that No. 14 was not Kemp's, nor did I hear any one say so. I concocted lies before the Commission, knowing full well that the land—No. 14 —had been given to Kemp for himself absolutely. I do not think now that I or the people will be prejudicially affected by the deed of release. None of the people think so. The deed of release has been withdrawn. Mr. McDonald asked the Court to allow him to call rebutting evidence as to No. 14. The Court informed Mr. McDonald that he could call rebutting evidence with regard to charges against himself, but not to rebut the evidence referring to No. 14.

129

G.—2a

Witness (to Sir W. Buller) : I heard the deed of release read out by Colonel McDonnell at door of Courthouse when the Commission was sitting. I was clear about it then. I heard it said then that the land would go to Kemp's descendants when he died. [Deed of release read to witness in Maori.] Witness : There is nothing to fear in the document you have read. I understood from what Colonel McDonnell read that the land was to go to Kemp's children. I went to you and asked you about it, and you explained it to me, but I was not satisfied, and became pouri. I must have misunderstood what Colonel McDonnell read. I was quite satisfied with your explanation, but my mind was disturbed by what I heard afterwards, and led me to give false evidence. I did not go to you again after I became pouri, although you were my kaiwhakahaere. Having heard the deed of release read, lam now satisfied that there is nothing in it detrimental to myself or the tribe. If Kemp had attempted to put his relatives who had no ahika into No. 11 I would have objected. I have challenged before this Court some of the persons in list of names submitted by Kemp to the Commission as owners of No. 11. The list was prepared by Kemp and others ; I was not consulted. Ido not consider that the tribe are bound by it. Since the Supreme Court decided that No. 11 belonged to the people Mr. Bartholomew has paid money as royalties for timber. Kemp has had nothing to do with this money. The amount was £40. It was paid to Hema, Ngataahi, and myself. We have spent it. There is a sum of £21 still in the bank. I regard the £61 as belonging to the ahika. We paid £10 of the amount (£4O) we received to Mr. J. M. Fraser, and spent the rest. There have been moneys paid for flax also, but I cannot give particulars. Waata knows them. £60 was taken to Kemp by Ihaia Taueki and Ngataahi. It was a present to Kemp. Mr. J. M. Fraser did not wish to re-examine. To Assessor: Kemp asked the people to meet in 1886 and discuss matters in connection with this land. It was he who agreed to Warena being put in No. 11 with him. The tribe objected. No. 14 was all east of the railway-line when we agreed about it in 1886. On survey it was found that there was not sufficient land east of the railway. Kemp did not consult the people about the extension west of the railway. I did not hear that he consulted Warena. I do not know why Kemp did not consult the people. Hengahenga was an ancestress of mine. She was Ngaiteao, Ngatihine, and Ngatipariri. She lived at Horowhenua. I have heard that the rua kumara belonging to Bangihikaka, which she robbed, was at Horowhenua. Bangihikaka lived sometimes here and sometimes at Pukehou. He went to his daughter at Pukehou. Pukehou was his whenua tuturu. His daughter's name was Whitirea. Te Bangihikaka went to Wairarapa, and died there. Hineitohua, daughter of Pariri, lived here. Her son Bangihikaka was taken south as a iamaiti whangai. I do not know by whom. He married a woman belonging to the south. Beturned here to his relatives at times. The first time I remember seeing Te Bangihouhia was when Manawatu was sold to the New Zealand Company. After that he went to Bangitikei. Makere te Bou sworn. The Court requested Mr. Fraser not to put any questions to the witness about No. 14, and asked the conductors to follow the same line. Sir W. Buller pointed out that it would be a matter for comment if he did not cross-examine this witness upon No. 14, because her name had been specially mentioned by the previous witnesses, who had said that they had been induced to give false evidence before the Commission. All he wished to do was to ask the witness to contradict what she had said before the Commission, if she chose to do so. The Court said that, if Sir W. Buller thought it necessary to cross-examine the witness on her evidence before the Commission, Mr. J. M. Fraser had better examine her on the point, so as to give the other conductors an opportunity of cross-examining her. Mr. Fraser said he would examine the witness in the direction indicated by the Court, although he had no intention of referring to the evidence given by her before the Commission. Witness (to Mr. Fraser): I live at Horowhenua. Was born at Horowhenua. I heard the evidence given by Ngataahi and Kerehi as to the ancestors who had rights to this land. They are the correct ancestors to this land. Ngataahi gave my descent from Pariri correctly. lam also a descendant of Te Ngarue and Potangotango. The latter obtained his right from Te Mou, who married Puakiteao. Kemp and Bewanui gave my line from Potangotango and Te Ngarue correctly. I have two lines from Te Ngarue —one through Pitaui, the other through Tawhati-a-Tumata. Both my parents had rights to this land. Tawhati-a-Tumata lived here, and is buried here. His father, Tumata, also lived and died here. Mr. McDonald said he did not dispute the occupation of Makere's elders and ancestors, or of her own occupation and that of her family. Witness (to Mr. Fraser): Te Arahi, father of Tumata, lived permanently at Horowhenua. Tumata's brothers all lived at Horowhenua. Te Arahi's brothers also lived here. The descendants of Te Arahi and Te Piro have occupied permanently Waikiekie, Te Koropu, and Te Boha-o-te-kawau. Hauiti was the younger sister of Te Arahi; she lived at Horowhenua. All her descendants lived there. I am not a descendant of Te Biunga; she lived here and at Waiwiri. I know her descendants who are represented by you. Baniera te Whata and the other members of the family of Noa te Whata are in your list. Karaitiana Tarawahi and sisters are other descendants of Te Biunga represented by you. Noa te Whata's elders lived at Horowhenua. Karaitiana Tarawahi's elders lived at Kouturoa by right from Te Biunga. Karaitiana has lived at the pa also. I know Hoani Puihi and his niece Metapere. Their elders lived at Otaki before migration to South Island. When Hoani Puihi returned he lived at Owairaka for a time ; then came here. Ido not know when. He may have been here at Kuititanga. He lived at Waipata. Hana Kotae, mother of Metapere, lived in South Island ; married there. When she returned she lived here permanently ; died here. Her children, Metapere and Amorangi Bihara, lived here. Metapere did not remain long; she

17— G. 2a.

& — %A

130

married a Ngatkarua, and went away. Hoani Puihi is an ahika ; so is Amorangi Bihara, although she has gone to W T anganui. Nati Amorangi has lived here ; gone to Wairarapa now. He was sent away. Is an ahika. I know Teoti te Hou. His mother lived here; went away and died. Teoti te Hou is living here ; he is an ahika. Ido not know where his ancestor Arawhita lived. Te Hou came here from the south ; lived here short time, returned south, and died. I know Hariata Tinotahi. Te Bau was her mother. She was a descendant of Te Horapoto. Her line from Te Horapoto lived permanently at Horowhenua. Biwai te Amo lived on this land. I know Ani Kanara te Baorao, Ariki, and Winara; they are descendants of Potangotango. The line from Potangotango to Te Baorao have lived permanently at Horowhenua. Te Bangimairehau is also descended from Potangotango. The line from that ancestor to Bangimairehau have occupied permanently. Ruta te Kiri, descendant of Te Hauiti, through Waka. Her father comes from Potangotango. Mahanga lived permanently at Horowhenua; so have Ruta and her children. I heard evidence of Kerehi as to occupation of Tomo and Muruahi. It is correct. I never saw Muruahi; he went away after he was married. His wife was Rewharewha. [Vol. 14, pages 189 to 191, witness's evidence.] I remember giving the names of the permanent occupants of Horowhenua, who were never taken prisoners. The evidence I gave at Palmerston Court as to cultivations is correct. Kerehi was wrong in saying that Whatanui persuaded Tawhati-a-Tumata to return from Otaki and not go to Mahurangi. Te Atua did not go at all. Tawhati, Te Pa, Te Marama, Whakaataarangi, my mother, Pitaua, and I started for the Mahurangi feast. When we reached Otaki my father became jealous of my mother and beat her. She and I returned. Tawhati and Whakaataarangi caught up to us at Ohau, and we came on to Horowhenua. Te Marama went on, and was taken prisoner. Te Waitere Kakiwa also went, but escaped. Taiweherua went and was killed; he went from Horowhenua. These are the only Muaupoko I know of who went. Tawhati ma continued to live at Horowhenua until introduction of Christianity. I heard the evidence of our witnesses about Te Wharetutaki. It is true; I confirm it. I heard the evidence about the quarrel over the loss of Te Piro's tinder-stick; it is true. I heard the evidence about the peacemaking between Taueki and Whatanui; it is true ; I was living at Te Namuiti at the time. All I can remember is that Raumatangi eel-weir and the bush at Te Mauri were given by Taueki to Whatanui. No one objected. I never heard of any boundary between Whatanui and Taueki, as alleged by Raraku, I can say positively that it was never mentioned at the peace-making. After peace-making Te Whatanui returned to Otaki; then came back and lived at Raumatangi. I heard evidence of Rawinia and Kerehi denying that Ngatikokopu had any land in this block. They were right. Te Wirihana spoke falsely when he said that Ngatikokopu had a boundary within this block, and that Tauatu gave their land to Tairatu. Tairatu died in the South Island. I know his descendant—lritana. I heard from my own elders that he died in the other Island. I am a descendant of Pariri, Never heard of any boundary between her and any one else on this land. It is quite untrue. The Court adjourned till the 20th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 20th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Makere te Rou's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : A large number of Muaupoko remained at Horowhenua during troublous times ; they lived independently, not as slaves. None of the Ngatikokopu lived here as Ngatikokopu. My ancestors did not live here as slaves of Rangihikaka; that is an untrue statement of Himiona and Wirihana Hunia. None of the Ngatikokopu lived at Horowhenua under the mana of Rangihikaka or Te Whatanui. I was the colonel of the attack on Ngatikokopu. Rangihikaka was one of my soldiers. We attacked the Ngatikokopu and Waiarawa. After peace was made with Whatanui Muaupoko lived in independence. Te Whatanui came to Muaupoko at Te Namuiti. The evidence of Wirihana and Himiona Kowhai that Muaupoko lived under the mana of Te Whatanui after peace-making is incorrect. I was at Foxton Court in 1873. Inia Tamaraki, Heta, Ruta, and Taitoko gave evidence in that Court. [Vol. 1, page 264, Heta te Whata :" I remember sheep being driven off," &c. "In 1857 Whatanui put sheep on this land."] They were not allowed to remain on this land ; they were turned off by Maunu ma. The whole of Muaupoko concurred in his action, and assisted in turning them off. The sheep were put on land south of Hokio. There were some cattle killed south of Hokio. Motai, Te Rangimairehau, and others killed the first lot at Te Puapua. Riwai te Amo drove a steer to Makomako, and my son killed it there. Motai and others killed some more inland of where railway now is. There were some more killed at Paruparu, south of Hokio, by Riwai, Heremaia, Heta, Motai, and others. The cattle were killed by Taitoko's instructions. The matter was discussed at Otaki by Muaupoko. I never heard that Kawana Hunia gave instructions to Muaupoko to kill the cattle. Long after killing of cattle trouble arose about survey of boundary at Mahoenui. When Ngatiraukawa commenced to survey the boundary there Muaupoko obstructed it, and stopped the survey. All Muaupoko took part in the obstruction. The resident Muaupoko did it of their own motion. Kawana Hunia had nothing to do with it. He was not there. I remember building of Kupe. Before erection of Kupe I never knew Hunia have anything to do with Muaupoko or their lands. He came here after Kupe was built. Ngatiraukawa did nothing after

131

G-.—2a

killing of cattle, &c, to show their supremacy over us until the time that Kawana Hunia came. Then trouble arose through his burning the houses at Bakauhamama. That was the first time Ngatiraukawa showed their teeth, and Hunia ran away. Hunia said in 1873 that he did not know Eakauhamama (vol. 2, page 7), but when he came he burnt the houses there. Kawana came to Kupe meeting. He took part in it. When the meeting was over he returned to Bangitikei. I remember building of Pipiriki Pa. I was present when order was given to build it. Kemp and Kawana Hunia ordered it to be built. Kemp and Hunia stayed at Pipiriki. While they were there troubles arose with Ngatiraukawa. Hunia was there when Watene's houses were burnt at Kouturoa; all Muaupoko did it. After the burning Hunia returned to Eangitikei, leaving Muaupoko to stand the brunt. Ngatiraukawa came and burnt Otaewa. When Muaupoko wished for advice in connection with their land they sought it from Kemp, Heta te Whata being their messenger to him at Wanganui. I have never heard that Muaupoko or any of them ever sought advice from Hunia. [Vol. 2, page 4, Kawana Hunia : " Waitui is a cultivation of Tanguru and Te Hakeke."] It was Tanguru's only; Hakeke never cultivated there. [" Tanguru is a Muaupoko ; Hakeke a Ngatiapa," &c] I repeat that Tanguru alone worked there with Muaupoko. Neither Hakeke nor Hunia ever worked there. Kemp did. Hakeke's cultivations were at Eangitikei. [Vol. 2, page 6, Kawana Hunia : " Otawhaowhao is a lake and cultivation adjacent to it. It was used shortly after Haowhenua by Muaupoko. The karaka-trees have been cut down since Haowhenua—cut down by Te Bangihouhia."] It is true the karakatrees and cultivations were there. Te Bangihouhia did not cut them down ; that is not true. Some of them were cut down by Tamati Maunu and others, who lived at Otawhaowhao; others are still standing. Kawana Hunia never had any cultivations or any occupation on this land. I have heard the evidence of previous witnesses as to the residence of Hunia's elders and ancestors at Pukehou and Eangitikei; it is perfectly true. My parents told me I was born about time of Taumatapoiriiri. It was a fight. I was able to walk when Mahurangi massacre took place. I never saw Kaewa living on this land ; she was at Eangitikei with her husband, who married her at Waitawa. I knew Wirihana Maihi. He never lived on this land ; he lived at Eangitikei. My evidence in 1891 as to his being brought here to a tohunga is correct. I had a half-sister, Mere Mionga. Her mother was Mango, of Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura. Mango lived at Manawatu and Eangitikei before she married Tawhati. She died at Eangitikei. Mere Mionga lived principally at Eangitikei. She never lived here permanently. Never cultivated here. Her children and grandchildren have never been here. I gave similar evidence to this before Eoyal Commission as to Mere Mionga. They are not ahika on this land. I know the persons represented by Henare te Apatari. Meretene, Peeti te Aweawe, and Hoani Meihana never lived on this land ; they have no ahika here. I heard the evidence of Eawinia and Kerehi about Ani Tihore ; she had no right in this land that I know of. I support the evidence of Eawinia and Kerehi regarding her. Inia Tamaraki had right in Horowhenua, but when he grew up he went away to Eangitikei, and never returned. He was at Eangitikei in 1873. He died at Wanganui. He had no children. Pane Korana has no right here; she is a poriro. Her mother was a Ngaitahu. She is said to be Henare Hanuhanu's child; if so, she has ancestral right. Never occupied until she married Eopiha, a Ngatiraukawa. Since their marriage they have lived at Hokio. I never heard Henare Hanuhanu say that Pane Korana was his daughter ; she never lived with him ; she was brought up by Hukiki at Muhunoa. Ihaka te Eangihouhia lived at Horowhenua, and went away to Eangitikei. He was born at Pukehou. His ancestral right and occupation was same as Kaewa's. Te Eangihouhia fled here after he killed Hotoke. I heard the evidence of Eawinia and Te Kerehi about Eihipeti and her elders in the list. I concur with their evidence. Paki te Hunga has not ahika tnturu on this land. His children have not occupied at all. I gave the same evidence regarding them before the Eoyal Commission as lam giving now. Hana Eata and Pire Tikara have not occupied permanently. Hana first came here just before Court of 1886. Kemp sent her here. She went away again. Pire Tikara has no ahika; he did not live here permanently ; he has lived at Ngatikahungunu. Peene Tikara has lived here permanently. Eia Eaikokiritia has never lived here. I never saw her here. She has lived permanently at Eangitikei. I do not admit her occupational rights to this land. I was in Palmerston when Court sat there in 1886. I attended meetings of Muaupoko in Palmerson's barn. I did not hear Warena Hunia's name mentioned in connection with No. 11 at any of those meetings. I first heard his name mentioned in Court. I heard the evidence of Bangimairehau and others in 1890 and 1891 as to what took place in the barn. It was true. I remember giving evidence before the Eoyal Commission. I was one of the leading witnesses called by Sir W. Buller. The evidence I gave the first time I was called was true. I was called to give evidence as to the occupation of Mere Mionga and others in the list of names. That evidence was correct. Towards the close of sitting of Commission I gave further evidence. Between the first time I gave evidence and the last time Mr. McDonald made certain suggestions (whakakiki) to me outside the Levin Hotel. Hema Henare was present. Mr. McDonald said to me, " Makere ka mate koutou; if Kemp dies this land will go to his descendants and not to you [plural], because you have all signed the deed of release drawn by Sir W. Buller. Do you not know that Kemp is a trustee for the tribe in No. 14 ? Under the circumstances you should appear before the Commission and say that the evidence you gave first was wrong, and endeavour to include No. 14 in No. 11, because a great injustice has been inflicted upon you." In consequence of what he told me I gave different evidence the last time I appeared before the Commission. I said what he told me to say. The effect of what Mr. McDonald said to me was to make me pouri. The first time that I gave evidence I said that the tribe had given No. 14 to Kemp for himself. After Mr. McDonald had spoken to me I went before the Commission and said that what I had said previously was a mistake, and that Kemp was trustee for the tribe in No. 14. I ask this Court to wipe out the evidence I gave before the Boyal Commission after Mr. McDonald had spoken to me. I now wish to affirm the first

G.—2a

132

e vidence I gave before the Commission, to the effect that the tribe gave No. 14 to Kemp for himself. I knew Pirihira Hautapu. She lived in the South Island; came here, remained a short time, and then returned to the South Island. She came back afterwards, lived here, and was killed at Otaki. She had ancestral right; her parents lived here. She is buried here. Her daughter Pirihira has ahika. Oriwia Maiangi was captured here, and taken to South Island. She returned here, and lived here until she ran away to Wanganui with Baniera. She is an ahika, through her ancestors and elders. She was here when Noa te Whata died. I know Hopa te Piki; he is an ahika; he took part in the troubles over this land, and has remained here ever since. The Court requested conductors to make their cross-examinations as brief as possible, and not ask unnecessary questions, or examine the witness on points that were not disputed. Cross-examined by Wiremu Kiriwehi. Witness :Te Ngarue, Potangotango, and Pariri all had rights on this land. They were not all of one family. They did not live together ; their descendants have. They lived amicably near each other. There was no boundary between them. I heard from my elders that the three ancestors I have named lived on friendly terms. I have never heard that they quarrelled. I derive my greatest rights from Te Ngarue and Patangotango, but I derive some right from Pariri. Tukoko lived on this land, but his descendants have not. They went to Bangitikei. Whakaaturangi was born here. She went to Bangitikei when she married, and never returned. She has no ahika here. She has been here on visits with her husband, but never remained permanently. None of her children were born here. It is not true that Ngapuhou and Waewae were born here. Himiona te Hopu brought Bamari here because she was related to him, not because Te Baikokiritia proposed to take her for a second wife. She married a Muaupoko, and had three children. Bamari did not live here on the rights of her ancestors and elders. She came because Himiona fetched her, not because she had any right to the land. Himiona brought her here because she was a relative. Ani Kanara, Ariki, and Te Bangimairehau are the persons who inherit the rights of Himiona Hopu ; they are his nearest relatives who have occupied. Neither Bia nor Bamari should share, because they have no ahika here. I I Tahatu Te Matangi i I Te Uirangi=Kuaka Konihi I I Rangimairehau Kaimaoa I Himiona te Hopu This whakapapa shows the relationship of Bangimairehau to Himiona te Hopu. Te Bangimairehau has occupied Horowhenua more permanently than Bamari did. It is not true that Bangimairehau only came here when he married me in 1879; he lived here with his first wife. Oriwia Maiangi lived here longer than Bamari. The persons who are entitled to No. 11 are those who have occupied permanently from the time of their ancestors down to themselves. The tribe oppose Kawana Hunia's claim to this land because he has no right to it. I know this of my own knowledge. lam one of the owners of Buatangata. Te Ahuru put me in that block because I had an ancestral right from Tokai. I have no house or cultivation there. I never gave false evidence in Court until I was induced to do so by Mr. McDonald. I said what he told me to say because he said that if I did the Boyal Commission would give us the land. Mr. Fraser did not tell us to object to Bia; we objected to her because she had no occupation. Bia, Mere Mionga, and Kawana Hunia brought food for themselves to Kupe meeting because they had none here. Ido not know that they came to assist us to hold the land. I had never been turned off it. Turuki assisted to prepare food for Kupe meeting. She married Maru. She came here from Bangitikei after she was grown up, and lived here a long time. When her second husband, Heremaia, died she returned to Bangitikei. Heremaia's cultivations should revert to me, and those of Maru to Ani Kanara ma. Turuki has had as much as she is entitled to in No. 3. No. 11 was set apart by Taitoko in 1886 for the permanent residents only. Turuki occupied without any right of her own. I know the canoes Pukepuke and Tikitiki. The former was paid for. We all admit Kemp's rights in No. 11. He will agree to the ancestors we have set up. If Kemp admits the rights of those we object to we will still adhere to our objection. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I have a right from Pariri through my father's mother. My greatest right is from Te Ngarue and Potangotango, but I maintain that Pariri had rights in this land. All the ancestors came from Ngatikahungunu. Ido not know which of them lived here first. I heard Kemp's evidence in 1890. I heard him deny Pariri's rights; he said that only those descendants of Pariri who intermarried with descendants of Te Ngarue, Te Biunga, and Potangotango had rights. I did not contradict him. He was fighting his nephew, Wirihana Hunia, at the time. Ido not agree with Baraku Hunia that only the land between Hokio and Ngatokorua should be for the ahika. The land south of Hokio is mine also. It belonged to my ancestors —Te Piro, Te Arahi, and others; and Ido not see why I should be deprived of it. The Muaupoko were living as an independent people when Taueki made peace with Whatanui. It was owing to the making of peace that the Muaupoko remained in peaceful possession of Horowhenua. I agree that all the ahika should have equal shares. I am willing that Hoani Puihi, who fled, should share equally with Tawhati, who remained. We have arranged this among ourselves. I would not agree to Hoani Puihi having my house, but I do not object to his having an equal share with me in the land. Kemp proposed in 1886 that No. 11 should be awarded to Ihaia Taueki. It was Wirihana who objected; the people did not. When Kemp agreed to Warena going in with him we became

133

a.—2a

angry and left. It was not Ngatipariri only who drove off Te Whatanui's sheep, nor was it that hapu alone who killed McDonald's cattle ; all the hapus joined. The Ngatipariri had no right to the eel-pas on Hokio Stream. The only persons of that hapu who had a right to the eel-pas were Hariata Tinotahi and Hanita Kowhai and their children. They derive their right from Te Horapoto. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Tireo, Te Biunga, Buatapu all had rights to this land. Kemp is the only descendant of Tireo who has a right. Tanguru was a descendant of Te Biunga. His son, Kemp, is the only one of that line who has a right to this land. Mahuri went to the Mahurangi feast, and was killed; he was a Bangitane. Taiweherua was the only Muaupoko killed there that I know of. Ngarangiwhakaotia was killed; he was from the south. Ido not know that he was a Muaupoko. He was a Ngatirangi. I heard that he took part in fight at Te Bae-o-te-karaka against Tukorehu. I never saw him working here ;he did not come here on his wife's rights (Bangahau); she was a Bangitane, and was born at Manawatu. Te Biunga died here. lam not sure when Parianiwaniwa died. Ido not know where Tihore died. Ido not know that Hinerautekihi died here. I say that Mahuri ma were Bangitane because they were born and lived at Manawatu. Ido not know names of Tireo's wives. Te Peeti came twice to Poroutawhao about a boundary between Ngatihuia and Muaupoko. The boundary was fixed at Ngatokorua. This was before 1873, I think. Peeti had no ahika here ; he never came here when troubles arose about this land ; he did not come to assist us against Ngatiraukawa when they threatened to attack us. Peeti came to Pipiriki at one time, but not when there was any trouble. I saw Ani Kanara Tihore here. Te Kerehi brought her here from Otaki, her permanent kainga. I heard that she was a descendant of Eangitomokia. Cannot trace her. Kerehi knows why he brought her here; I do not. She lived with Te Kerehi and worked his cultivations. Ido not know whether she had any ancestral right here; I never heard. I never saw Hoani Meihana living here ; he came once to tangi over Whakaewa; he stayed with me a short time, and returned to Manawatu. Whakaewa died and was buried at Manawatu. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I deny Mere Mionga's rights. I did so before the Eoyal Commission. She has no rights here —no house or cultivations. Ido not know who put the name in the certificate of 1873. I had come away before list of names was made out. My children and grandchildren are certificated owners. They derive their right from me. I get mine from Potangotango and Te Ngarue. They are each entitled to shares of their own, and will get mine when I die. Mere Mionga's mother had no right to this land; our father's rights come to me because she (Mere) went away. I remained to take care of him. The first time I saw her was at Bangitikei. She was married and had children. The Court announced that, as the building was required for the use of the Stipendiary Magistrate in the forenoon to-morrow, the case would be adjourned till 2 p.m. Case adjourned till 2 p.m. of the 21st instant. Levin, Wednesday, 21st July, 1897. The Court opened at 2 p.m. Present: W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor ; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. The building being required for use of Stipendiary Magistrate for rest of day, it was decided to adjourn till to-morrow. All cases adjourned till the 22nd instant. The Court adjourned till the 22nd instant.

Levin, Thursday, 22nd July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge, presiding; W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor; A. H. Mackay, Clerk ; H. McDonald, Interpreter. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case—continued. Makere te Bou's cross-examination by Mr. Knocks. Mr. Knocks not present. Mr. McDonald asked to cross-examine the witness before Hamuera Karaitiana. Hamuera Karaitiana had no objection. Mr. Knocks arrived, and continued his cross-examination. Witness (to Mr. Knocks): Herewini Bakautihia had rights in No. 11 by occupation. I agree with the evidence of Bawinia and Te Kerehi regarding him. His rights should come to myself and others entitled. The eldest child of a Maori is not always the upoko ariki. Mere Mionga was not my upoko ariki. Te Ahuru put me in Buatangata on account of my relationship to him through Tokai. I repeat that Mere Mionga has no right to this land. She has not occupied it. I have. I had a brother called Heremaia; he has the same right to this land that I have. Heremaia's son Hopa and my children and grandchildren should all receive equal shares. It is the wish of the tribe that it should be so. The whole of Muaupoko discussed the matter when this Court was adver-

G.—2a

134

tised, and came to the decision that all shares should be equal. In 1886 Taitoko set apart No. 11 for the permanent residents, to the exclusion of all who had not occupied. I sent my son Mohi Bakuraku to the South Island ;he was grown up when he left; cultivated before he left. He returned here when his brother died, and has lived and cultivated here ever since. He derives his right from me. His father was a Ngaitahu, and had no right. Ido not know who took Mere Mionga to Manawatu. My father did not tell me. I did not ask him. I was at Palmerston in 1886 when Mere Mionga was awarded 105 acres in No. 3. That is sufficient for her. It was considered in 1886 that the award of 105 acres each was sufficient for the outsiders, and that this block should be reserved for the ahika. The matter was discussed publicly in Palmerson's barn. Meiha Keepa heard it, and agreed to the decision come to by the tribe. Those who had no right were put on the hills. Mere Mionga's children and grandchildren have no right to No. 11 from Herewini Bakautihia. I contend that none of the deceased owners' names should be put in No. 11. We wish to leave all our dead people on the hills, and keep No. 11 for the living. Manihera te Bau lived here on his wife's rights. She was his ringakaha. I saw Pita Pukeroa here ;he did not remain long ; he came through his wife, Pirihira Arahura. They lived at Namuiti with Muaupoko. Manihera te Bau drew rents for Horowhenua on account of his wife. The right was hers. It was on behalf of his wife that he took part in proceedings in connection with this land. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald, before commencing his cross-examination, expressed his regret for making the remark that caused Baraku Hunia to misconduct herself. Witness (to Mr. McDonald) : When you said to me, "If Kemp dies the land will go to his descendants," you referred to Nos. 11 and 14. I said, the first time I gave evidence before the Commission, that the people had given No. 14 to Kemp for himself. It was in consequence of what you said that I changed my evidence. You asked me if I did not know that Kemp was a trustee in No. 14 as well as in No. 11, and told me to appear before the Commission and say I was wrong in saying that Waiwiri was for Taitoko only, and that he held both No. 14 and No. 11 in trust for the tribe. You told me that if I gave this evidence the Boyal Commission would give the land to us. I did not tell you that I could not tell lies. I thought what you said to me was true, and that my only course was to follow your advice. You mixed up No. 11 with No. 14. That was why I became alarmed, when you said that if Kemp died the land would go to his heirs. I thought there would be no land left for the people. I listened to you because you spoke to me on several occasions. It was the first time that I had spoken falsely. You tried to influence several others. I was ignorant, and believed you. You wanted us to bring Ihaia to give evidence, but he was not well enough. It was after you gave evidence before the Commission that you spoke to me. I heard you give evidence before the Commission. I understood that you claimed that your client Wirihana ma had rights in Waiwiri, and that you disputed Kemp's rights to the whole of No. 14. You told me to say that Kemp was trustee for the people in No. 14 as well as in No. 11. You approached Hema Henare and others first; they did not listen to you, but I did. You spoke to me openly in the street, and must have spoken in a loud tone or I could not have heard you, as lam deaf. It is not true that Ngataahi and I went to your office. You sent Buka for Ngataahi, but I did not go to your office. I was not one of the women who, it is said, came to the door of the Court at close of sittings of Commission. The Muaupoko were not under the mana of Te Whatanui; we lived as an independent tribe. I indorse the evidence of preceding witnesses, that the only gifts to Te Whatanui were Baumatangi and Te Mauri. Hanita and Noa were porangi to buy the eel-pas from Whatanui; they ought to have known that the pas were their own. I told Noa that he was porangi. Whatanui was encroaching beyond the gifts made to him—one eel-pa and a piece of bush. One of the younger Whatanuis endeavoured to fix a boundary at Mahoenui, but it was never confirmed. It was objected to. Muaupoko decided not to go on with the sale. The land south of Mahoenui was afterwards sold to the Government by Ngatiraukawa, but the Muaupoko did not hear of it. I never heard whether Kemp objected to or approved of the sale. Whatanui leased the land south of Hokio, but the lease was interfered with. Te Whatanui gave Muaupoko £9 and satisfied them. Te Whatanui was encroaching. He joined Muaupoko in leasing the land north of Hokio, but we (the Muaupoko) afterwards excluded him from participation in the lease. The successors of the original Whatanui encroached very considerably beyond the gifts made by Taueki to Whatanui. All the tribes assembled to consider these encroachments, but nothing definite was done except as regards rents. I have made a mistake : the encroachments were stopped by that meeting. The rents were paid to Muaupoko, and not to Whatanui. Muaupoko settled about the rents ; Watene did not interfere. After Te Kupe meeting Ngatiraukawa attempted to lay down a boundary at Kupe, but Muaupoko prevented them. Muaupoko were in possession of the land before 1873. They also received the rents before that date. Kemp's evidence in 1873 is correct in some things, but Hunia was not associated with Kemp in connection with his land except in the burning of the houses. That was the first time Hunia took part in matters affecting this land. All the ancestors we have set up had rights in this land. We have always known this. The descendants of Pariri who have occupied have rights. Those who have lived at Manawatu and Otaki should go back to those places. Bangihouhia's lands were at Pukehou. His son Ihaka lived here for a time. Bangihikaka cultivated at Otaewa, but he had no right there. The kumara field belonged to his tamahine; he lived at Pukehou. Inia Tamaraki's father died here. Inia lived here until he grew up. Went away after introduction of Christianity; married and remained away. Kemp went away, but his father, Tanguru, remained here until sale of Ahuaturanga Block, when he went to Manawatu. Kemp was put in Tuwhakatupua because be put some of the Bangitane in Horowhenua. He had ancestral rights in Tuwhakatupua. Many other Muaupoko had rights from Puakiteao and Tireo, but they were not put in. Bangimairehau got into Aorangi on his ancestral rights from Tireo; he lived there for a time, and returned here. I objected to Hoani Puihi's rights here on his mother's side in 1890.

135

a.— 2a

Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : The evidence of Bawinia was true as to Te Umutawa-a-pariri and the papa tutaki. Ngatipariri fought against Ngatikokopu as my soldiers. All my tupuna took part in the conquest of Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura. I have the same objection to your clients as the witnesses who have preceded me. Peene Tikara has lived here permanently. Hanita Kowhai kept him here. I object to the other members of the family, because they have not occupied. I deny the rights of Paki te Hunga because he has not occupied. His mother had rights. She returned from the koura mawhitiwhiti. Some of Paki's children died here, but they were brought up at Bangitikei. They were sent here to Wiki Pua. I still say that Te Paki has no right by occupation. I have as much right to object to Te Paki as his half-sister Iritana has. Iritana may admit Te Paki's rights ; if she does, that is her matter. I object to Bihipeti because she has not lived here permanently. Her parents did. Her parents' rights should go to Hema ma, who have used their cultivations and eelpas. The case concerning No. 14 has been disposed of in this Court. I mentioned it in my evidence-in-chief because I was questioned regarding it. The Waiwiri section was all east of the railway when we gave it to Kemp in 1886. Bangimairehau, Baniera, and I stated to the Boyal Commission that we had given Waiwiri to Kemp. We all knew that Papaitonga was included in No. 14. I cannot say that Kemp and Warena asked us to consent to the section being extended to Papaitonga. I knew some time before the Commission sat that No. 14 extended to Waiwiri. Mr. McDonald is the only person who has induced me to give false evidence. It was through him also that Kerehi and Bawinia told falsehoods before the Eoyal Commission. Waata Tohu and his sisters have no rights in Horowhenua by occupation. Te Oti Hou lived here. He went to Wairarapa, and returned. He has rights. He is living here now. Notwithstanding that I have rights from both my parents, I am willing that all the ahika should have equal shares. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : All the land south of Hokio has been occupied by the Muaupoko tuturu from 1873 down to present time. It is used principally as a grazing-run for cattle and sheep. Hector McDonald, sen., formerly paid us for the right to run cattle on the land. Neither Hakeke nor Hunia ever worked on this block. Tanguru and Keepa have both cultivated on Horowhenua. Tanguru had a house at Waitiu landing; the site is still visible. He had another house. I cannot say when the house at Waitiu was built. I saw it when I was a big girl. I saw Tanguru living in ft. He went away about 1863 or 1864. He lived here until that time. Tanguru had another house on the other side of the lake. He had cultivations there also. He and Keepa and the people living there built a church there. Tanguru had a cultivation at Te Maii, Hokio; another at Te Puapua. Ido not know of any other. He had no eel-pas. Kemp only left Horowhenua permanently when he married. He made frequent visits here afterwards. He is an ahika. lam quite clear about this. His sister, Bora Hakaraia, was an ahika. I consider she has rights. Her relatives have kept her fires alight. Ido not admit the rights of her children. Wiki Keepa is not ahika; she must participate in Kemp's share ; she has had sufficient in No. 3. I remember the Boyal Commission, and the evidence I gave. You have never spoken to me about the evidence I gave. I signed your retainer to appear for us before the Commission. You briefed me, and called me before I gave my first evidence. I did not go to you after I had been tampered with; I went straight into the witness-box and gave the evidence Mr. McDonald told me to give. I made no reply to Mr. McDonald. I accepted what he told me. I did not tell my people what Mr. McDonald had said to me. Hema Henare heard what he said. McDonald spoke to him also, but he would not listen. In consequence of what Mr. McDonald said to me I became very pouri that I had signed the kiri-hipi. He told me that the land would go to Kemp's heirs. I heard Colonel McDonnell read the kiri-hipi. I objected then, because I had not signed it. It was when Mr. McDonald spoke to me about the kiri-hipi that I first became pouri about it. I remember now that I put my mark on the kiri-hipi at Pipiriki after Hector McDonald bad read it over and explained it to me. I was quite clear about it then, as it was only to release Kemp. The evidence I gave first before the Eoyal Commission is correct. I ask the Court to wipe out the evidence I gave last; it was untrue. I affirm what I said in the first evidence I gave—that the tribe gave No. 14 to Kemp for himself. Mr. Fraser did not wish to re-examine. To Assessor: I was well grown when Taueki and Whatanui made peace. Muaupoko were all living together at Namuiti. Whatanui came from Otaki. Paora Potiira and others came with him. lam sure he did not come here from Karekare. There was no mediator between Bauparaha and Muaupoko. Himiona Hopu was the lay-reader for Muaupoko. Ido not know the year or month that Kemp built his church, but I know that he had a church, and that he taught religion. He was a Wesleyan. He became a Wesleyan here, not at Wanganui. I consider those who returned here in troublous times and assisted in holding the land, and who have resided here since, are ahika. Ido not look upon those who returned shortly before 1886 as ahika. No. 11 was set apart by Kemp and the people for the ahika. Mr. J. M. Fraser said he would call Baniera te Whata. Raniera te Whata wished to be called last. Mr. Fraser said Baniera was his last witness, so far as the rights to the land were concerned. Baniera te Whata sworn. Witness : I live at Horowhenua. I was born at Te Waikiekie, on this block. I have a claim to No. 11 —over the whole block. I claim from Te Ngarue, Potangotango, Buatapu, Te Koa, and Te Biunga. I am also a descendant of Hamua. Kemp's evidence as to my genealogy from Te Ngarue is correct. My ancestors from Te Ngarue down to my father lived permanently on this block. My father, Noa te Whata, lived and died at Horowhenua. Te Atara lived at Horowhenua;

Gk—2a

136

he died and is buried here. Te Piro lived at Te Koropu; he died at Waikiekie. My ancestors from Te Ngarue down were all warriors. I heard the evidence of Bawinia as to the quarrel between Te Piro and Ngatikokopu. It is correct. I cannot give my line from Buatapu and Hokiara. lam a descendant of Potangotango : — Potangotango = Tokai I Takoria Raukawakawa I Pirihira te Whata = Noa | | ' | Raniera te Whata Heta te Whata My mother and her ancestors lived permanently on this land. Their pa was Te Boha-o-te-kawau. Te Riunga Taniwha I Wairoto | Rangiwhakatekaia = Te Mate Waiorua = Hinewaikuku Hineiawhitia = Te Afcara Whareao Noa te Whata (1) Toheriri (2) Takare (3) Paipai My father told me my whakapapa from Te Biunga, who derived her right from Puakiteao. Ido not know who the latter married. My ancestors and elders on this line lived permanently at Horowhenua and Papaitonga. Hineiawhitia is buried at Komakorau. Bangiwhakatekaia died at Waikiekie. I remember giving evidence in the Court of 1891; that evidence is correct. I was then giving evidence for Kemp. I have occupied south of Hokio Stream at Te Wawahanga. My brother Heta also occupies south of stream. We live north of Hokio, but fish in the lakes to the south of it. We have stock running on land south of Hokio —sheep, pigs, cattle, and horses. The Muaupoko have grazed stock there for many years. I put my sheep on when 1 returned from Wanganui. I came to Horowhenua after returning from Arapaoa, at time of Putikiwharanui fight. My tupuna, Te Atua, brought me here. Taueki, Tawhati-a-Tumata, Tawhati-a-henga, Tanguru, Warakihi, Te Matangi, and Te Atua were the chiefs residing here then. I was here at time of Haowhenua fight; I took part in it. I went from Horowhenua with my people. I had not been here long when it took place. I was present when Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace at Te Namuiti. Tanguru was there. It is not true that he was in Wanganui. lam certain that he was at Horowhenua. He objected to Taueki making peace. I knew Te Bangihouhia. Ido not know where he was living when Te Atua brought me here. It was afterwards that I saw him. He was here before the peace-making; he wanted to kill Whatanui, as he had Hotoke. Whatanui came from Otaki. We did not approach him to make peace. It was he who came to us. After peace was made Bangihouhia went to Bangitikei—long before Kuititanga. He returned here and lived at Waipata. He came backwards and forwards, finally bringing Kaewa's head, with intention of burying it at Pukehou ; but, as it was not safe to go there, it was buried here—at Komakorau. The Court adjourned till the 23rd instant.

Levin, Feiday, 23rd July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Baniera te Whata's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : Kaewa's head was buried before Kuititanga. I remember signing of Treaty of Waitangi. I was at Horowhenua. I had been here ever since Te Atua brought me. Tanguru was at Te Namuiti when Treaty of Waitangi was signed. I did not see Bangihouhia here then; he may have been at Bangitikei. Te Whatanui was at Otaki. From my first recollection up to signing of Treaty of Waitangi Muaupoko occupied Horowhenua as an independent people, not under subjection to Whatanui. It was long after Treaty of Waitangi that I first went to Wanganui I did not live there permanently. I came backwards and forwards. I know the places at which I and my father worked on this block. My father had a house on the land at the pa. I also have a house on it. I have heard of the ancestor Te Hukui. He had no right to this land. He was taken prisoner at Te Makahuri, near Otaki, by a war-party raised by my ancestor, Te Ikawhiri. His life was spared. If he had been killed then he would have had no descendants. This shows the prowess of my ancestors. The descendants of Te Hukui can say where he died. Cross-examined by Wi Kiriwehi. Witness : Te Koropu is south of line of Hokio Stream. We have cultivated south of Hokio Stream. I did not see Te Hape or Tukoko when I returned from the South. Te Baorao was here. Te Whakaaturangi was not here ; she had married Hura, of Bangitikei, and was living there. lam giving evi-

Gr.— 2a

137

dence on my own behalf, without regard to what other witnesses for the tribe have said. I do not agree that all the owners should have equal shares with me. I have a greater right than most. Nor do I concur with the proposal of the tribe that names of deceased owners should be excluded from No. 11. I have no opinion as to the rights of the descendants of Potangotango by his wife Pirihongi. I should think some of them had rights—those who occupied. Tukoko was a descendant of Whanokirangi, but Tukoko's children went away, and never returned. Whakaaturangi went to Bangitikei when she married. Ido not know where she lived before her marriage. BamarilivedonNo.il; she married Hopa. Himiona te Hopu brought her here. Turuki was not here at time of Haowhenua. She came afterwards —before Kuititanga. I consider that the occupation of our ancestors is our greatest claim to this land. I did not hear Hoani Puihi, Bawinia, or Makere give their evidence. If they admitted that they had given false evidence in previous Courts I leave the Court to judge of the value of their evidence. Bia Baekokiritia is a younger relative of mine, and so are you. Bia has no take to the land ; she married Hamuera, and has lived away. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : The ancestor Pariri had no right to this land. Those of her descendants who intermarried with my line acquired rights. When Taueki and Te Whatanui made peace Taueki gave Whatanui the Baumatangi eel-weir. I never heard that they laid down a boundary between them. I bought an eel-pa in Hokio Stream from Te Whatanui. I did it to do away with any claim Te Whatanui might prefer to it, and to prevent quarrels. I was brought from the South Island a prisoner by the war-party that killed Kotuku. I know a canoe called Takurangi. My elders bought it from Nepia Taratoa for a cask of powder, which they handed to Te Whatanui. Taueki asked Nepia Taratoa for the canoe, to bring my father over from the South Island. I consider that those who went away and returned have equal rights with those who remained. We were not driven away by our enemies; we went of our own accord. Te Whatanui came from Otaki when he made peace with Taueki, not from Karekare, as stated by Te Baraku. He sent his slaves first, and, finding that Muaupoko did not kill them, he came himself. Whatanui assumed mana over land south of Hokio, and leased it to McDonald. Ido not know why Muaupoko consented. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness: Ido not know who Mere Mionga's husband was when I came here. Tawhati-a-Tumata was married to Pitaui. My case is identical with Kemp's, not with the tribe's. I cannot desert the person who dragged me on shore. He got No. 11 back for us, notwithstanding the contention of Warena that it belonged to Kemp and himself alone. I claim my ancestral rights to this land. Ido not know about Mere Mionga's claims ; her children must say what her claims are. She has no right; her fires have gone out; her descendants have not occupied. Te Bangihiwinui was killed on this side of the Manawatu Biver. Ido not know whether Mere Mionga lived with him. It was Kemp who said that No. 11 was for the ahika only. He said it in Court at Palmerston ; I heard him. He said that the takekores had sufficient in No. 3. Tawhati-a-Tumata had rights in No. 11. Makere objects to some of his descendants. I do not know anything about Whatanui Haua being taken to the northern boundary of Horowhenua to live. I do not know how many years I have been away from Horowhenua altogether. When I was away at Wanganui my parents and brother kept my fires alight. There was no one to keep Mere Mionga's fires alight. Makere has objected to her because she had no fires alight. My brother could not have turned me off the land when I returned. Ido not consider that we are under any obligation to the people who assisted us in securing this land through the Native Land Court; they have had sufficient to reward them for their services. My father went to Wanganui to see his relatives'there, and returned here. I was grown up at the time. He did not cultivate at Wanganui. It was at time of murder of Gilfillans. I consider that an owner who has rights by occupation and has ten children should receive more than an owner with the same rights who has no children. It was Kemp who proposed to set apart No. 6 for those who had been omitted in 1873. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : Himiona Kowhai is one of the descendants of Pariri who has rights to this land; he is also a descendant of Potangotango. Bihipeti Nireaha has rights to this land, but not through the ancestors she claims from. Her rights are from Hura te Papa. The tribe says that Bihipeti's fires have gone out, she has been away so long. My ancestors did not take possesion of Makahuri after the fight, but they spared Hukui. I do not admit Te Paki's rights; his father was a European ;he has not lived here permanently. Te Oti Hou is a half-caste, but he has lived here permanently. Te Paki was turned off the land by Hanita Kowhai; he married, and has lived away for years ;he only lived here a year at the time his children died. Peene Tikara has no right to this land ; his mother, Turikatuku, married a European. She had rights, but she went away, and never returned. Her children have only lately returned to the land. It is for the Court to say who should have her rights. Some of the ancestors had rights to the land, others had not. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : My Maori name is Mokinokino. I was christened Eaniera te Whata. The pakehas nick-named me " Jack Dog " by way of joke, because I could catch pigs without a dog when I was young. I lived with my relatives at Wanganui. There is a Maori whakatauaki, "Ka mate kainga tahi ka ora kainga rua." I have not followed Kemp because he protected me. He is a near relative of mine. lam his tuakana by the Ngarue line. From Te Biunga, Kemp is my tuakana. My rights from Te Biunga I gave to Kemp in 1886. I have rights to this land from Te Biunga. I have a claim to No. 11 from Potangotango and Te Ngarue. Te Biunga went to Papaitonga to

18— G. 2a.

G.—2a

138

live. Her brothers came to this part of the block. There was no one at Papaitonga when Te Biunga went there. Te Aitanga-a-whareao were her descendants. Te Biunga was married when she lived at Papaitonga. Taniwha was her husband. She lived at Papaitonga before she married him. They were married at Papaitonga. I do not know where Taniwha came from to marry Te Biunga. Pariri was not here at that time. Ido not know where she was ; probably on her own lands at Pukehou. If Bawinia has said that Pariri was here, that is her story. lam telling what I have heard. I leave the Court to decide which is correct. I have told the Court that Ikawhiri saved Te Hukui when he was a child—l mean the first Ikawhiri, younger brother of Te Aokehu. Ido not know that Ikawhiri lived several generations after Te Hukui. Bangiwhakaturia was the father of Ikawhiri. This land belonged to Te Ngarue, Potangotango, and Buatapu. They all lived together. Te Biunga lived at Papaitonga at same time; she died there. Te Ngarue was not related to Ngatikokopu or Ngaitaikaka. Ngaitaikaka were defeated before Ngatikokopu by Potangotango, Tireo, and others of my ancestors. It was Te Piro who conquered the Ngatikokopu. Ngamaihi was killed. Te Bangihikaka was one of his soldiers. Ido not know that Bangihikaka had a kumara-pit at Otaewa. I never heard of it. My ancestor had one there called Tahuna-ngarara. I have heard that Hengahenga's mouth was " makutued "; it may have been for stealing kumaras; I do not know. If they were Bangihikaka's he must have grown them in the Horowhenua Lake. I was born about the time of Tuwhare's war-party (1820). Ido not remember all who went with us to South Island. Kotuku was the chief. Tairatu was one of the party. He and Kotuku were killed in the South Island. Komakorau was also killed. They were all killed by the party that captured me. Tairatu was not dead before Te Bauparaha came here. I have never heard of Te Muretu. My ancestors, Te Piro and others, built Waikiekie Pa long before I went to Arapaoa. I never heard from my father why we went to Arapaoa. We did not go through fear of our enemies. I know of Taiweherua, who married Konihi. I do not know whether he was a brother of Kotuku. He was killed at Mahurangi. Ido not know who he was. When Kotuku left for the South Island he suggested that all Muaupoko should accompany him. Taueki refused. Kotuku's party did not abandon the land ; they left some of their relatives on the land. I was grown up when I returned from Arapaoa. My relatives welcomed me. Te Atua fetched me from Maraekuta. I found my people living in a state of independence. They did not lose their independence afterwards. It was long afterwards that Noa bought the eel-pa from Whatanui. I proposed that we should pay for the pa to prevent Whatanui encroaching. Muaupoko were angry with us for doing it. I will not admit that Whatanui had the mana over the whole of this land; it is not true. He attempted to take more than was given to him. Taueki and the first Whatanui adhered to their agreement. The second Whatanui departed from the agreement to some extent, and the third violated it altogether. That is why Taueki's descendants applied to the Court. My father bought the eel-pa from the second Whatanui. The first resistance offered by Muaupoko to Whatanui was the killing of the cattle. Muaupoko continued to resist Whatanui up to the Court of 1873. It is a fact that Hunia was associated with Kemp in the proceedings taken in connection with this land. The end of the trouble was the Court of 1873, when this land was awarded to Muaupoko. I was present at the Court of 1886 in Palmerston. You were there also, and acted as our agent, until we quarrelled, because you misled us. I did not hear any discussion about No. 11 in Palmerson's barn. I did not hear it said that it was to be awarded to Kemp, but we understood that it would be. It was not said that Kemp was to be trustee until we went into the side-room off the Courthouse. When we reached the room Kemp said, " I wish to give the toenga of the land to Ihaia to divide." Wirihana Hunia objected, and said Warena's name should go in. Ngataahi asked what objection there was to Ihaia. Wirihana said, "I do not approve of him." We thought that Kemp would continue to be trustee, as he had been since 1873, but he suggested that we should agree to Warena being put in with him, as he was an honest young man. We were angry, and Warena's conduct has shown that we were right and that Kemp was wrong. I and my relatives looked upon Kemp as a trustee in 1886, as he had been from 1873. After 1886 we found that Kemp contended that he was trustee for the tribe, while Warena considered that he was absolute owner, and could dispose of the land as he chose. This was in 1890. Before that we believed the land was ours, and that Kemp and Warena were taking care of it for us. The Court adjourned till the 24th instant.

Levin, Saturday, 24th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. J. M. Fraser's Case —continued. Baniera te Whata cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : When the subdivision of Horowhenua was discussed this block, No. 11, was left for the permanent occupants of it. The lake was included in the portion set apart for the ahika. It is the source of their food-supply. This was understood by all the ahika. They thought that No. 11 was for those who had rights by ancestry and occupation. There was therefore no need for discussion. I think the lake should be fenced in as a permanent reserve and sustenance-ground for the permanent residents. There should be a small area reserved round the margin of the lake, so that the lake would be available for all. I have seen Tanguru living on this land; he had cultivations at Waitiu and Te Puata; he had a house and church at the latter place. Kemp preached in the church, and when he was away I. did so. Tanguru died here. Kemp brought

139

G.—2a

him here to die. He took his mother to Wanganui that she might die there. Kemp and Bora both lived here with their father. Bora left when she married Hakaraia. She returned here occasionally after her marriage. Kemp went to Wanganui to perform his duties there, and came here to do whatever was necessary. I consider he is ahika tuturu. Wiki Keepa is not, in my view, an ahika tuturu ; her only ahika is through her father. Bora Hakaraia has ahika, from a Maori point of view. Waata Tohu's ancestors occupied. He should be left to Kemp and myself to provide for. The tribe has decided to exclude many in his position. Be-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Kawana Hunia first took part in troubles over Muaupoko lands after 1873, when he found that Kemp was in the certificate and that he was on the back, among the people. I was in Wanganui when the troubles arose over the sheep, cattle, and leases. To Assessor : I was here when Taueki and Whatanui made peace. Ngatitoa were the enemies of Muaupoko. Ido not know whether they had made peace before I came. I have not heard of it. If Kerehi Mitiwaha has said that Te Bangihouhia was here at time of sale of Manawatu to New Zealand Company that is his version. I was here. I went to Wanganui when Bangihaeata was living at Poroutawhao —when he first went there. I did not live permanently at Wanganui. I left Maiangi there, and often returned here myself. Kemp was living at Waikanae as policeman, and afterwards as mailman. Tanguru and his wife continued to live here. Kemp was afterwards appointed Assessor, and went to Wanganui. The reason the tribe and myself object to Te Paki is that he has not occupied permanently. The tribe have decided that Bihipeti has had sufficient; she went to her husband's lands. Mr. Fraser said his case was closed so far as the inquiry as to relative interests was concerned. He desired to call Hema Henare, to give evidence as to Mr. McDonald's relations with Makere. Hema Henaee sworn. Witness : I was born at Horowhenua. I live here. I remember sitting of Boyal Commission last year. I heard Makere give eyidence in this Court relative to a meeting between her and Mr. McDonald. I was present. It took place outside the Levin Hotel. I confirm Makere's account of what took place at the meeting between her and Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald and I came out of the hotel together. We were talking together about the subject upon which he afterwards spoke to Makere. In the hotel Mr. McDonald spoke to me about the deed of release. He said, "Ka mate koutou ite kiri hipia Te Pura raua ko Taitoko i panuitia ra." He explained how we would be injured. He said that if Kemp died the land would go to his heirs. He then said, "Me tahuri koutou me patu ia Te Keepa me ki c koutou he kaitiaki ia mo te nama 14, i ki mai ano ia mehemea ka patu koutou i a Te Keepa ka hoki mai to koutou whenua ki a koutou, ma te Komihana c Whakahoki mai, iki mai ia ki au me haere au me korero ki etahi o Muaupoko." I did not reply to what Mr. McDonald had said, but it made me pouri. We then came out of the hotel, and saw Makere standing outside. Mr. McDonald called out to her. She replied, and then the conversation took place. He said to her what he said to me. Winara and I were standing by. Winara is dead now. Makere gave evidence afterwards before the Boyal Commission. I was not present. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : The conversation between us took place in one of the hotel-rooms, no one else being present. You and I were friendly at that time. I heard first that your position at that time was kaiwhakahaere for the tribe. I afterwards heard that you were acting for the Government. I heard from Wirihana Hunia that you were acting for the Government because we were not willing that you should act for the tribe. I do not know what the Government wanted. I heard sometimes that you were acting for the Government, then I heard you were appearing for Wirihana, and again that you were acting on behalf of the tribe. The interests of Te Wirihana, the tribe, and the Government were all separate, and antagonistic. Sometimes you appeared to be acting for Wirihana, at others for the Government, and at others for the tribe. When you spoke to me in the hotel-room I think you were on Wirihana's side, and wanted to get the tribe over to him, and injure Kemp. That is why you offered us a weapon to kill Kemp with. You said that if we killed Kemp we would be saved. I was mistaken in saying that you were acting for Wirihana when you spoke to me. I remember now that you told me you were acting for the Government. You said that if we turned against Kemp it would be better for the tribe. I suppose you were acting in the interests of the tribe, as you told me that if we turned against Kemp the Commission would give us the land; but that did not happen, as it is before this Court now. According to your statements to me you were acting in the interests of the tribe. I did not concur with or dissent from what you said. I did not understand the terms of the deed of release as it was read out by the interpreter; it was not clear. You explained to me that it meant that if Kemp died the land would go to his heirs. You urged me to persist in saying that Kemp was a trustee in No. 14. I consider that you incited us to say what was false, and insist that Kemp was a trustee in No. 14. You told me that we should say that Kemp was a trustee for No. 14, that being an untruth. I knew at the time that what you told me was false, because No. 14 had been given to Kemp for himself. I do not know what was in Makere's mind after your conversation with her. I knew what you said was untrue. I did not go into the Court and say so. lam not afraid to repeat to this Court the lies that you uttered to Makere and myself. Be-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Sir W. Buller has never spoken to me, or to any of us that I know of, about the false evidence given before the Boyal Commission by Makere and others. To Assessor: It was after the deed of release had been read out by the interpreter that McDonald spoke to me. I arrived just as the interpreter had finished reading it. The deed

G-.—2a

140

seemed quite clear as it was read over to us when we signed it. It was Mr. McDonald who alarmed me by telling me that if Kemp died the land would go to his heirs. To Court: Sir W. Buller may have been in Levin when Mr. McDonald spoke to me. I did not go to him, because I was angry. We did not speak for some time afterwards. I heard some of those who were present when the deed of release was read say that they did not understand it. I did not make known to Muaupoko what McDonald had told me about No. 14. I thought that, if it was as McDonald said—that the land would go from us when Kemp died—then we should retaliate upon Kemp by saying that he was a trustee in No. 14. I know that Makere was wrong in swearing to what was false, but I did not tell her so, because I believed that Kemp and Sir W. Buller had done us an injury. Mr. McDonald tendered himself as a witness regarding the charges made against him. Alexandee McDonald sworn. Witness: I have heard the evidence given by Bawinia, Kerehi Tomo, Makere, and Hema Henare. Their statement that I told them "Ka mate koutou ite kiri hipi, kite mate aTe Keepa ka riro te ivhenua i ana uri" is correct. I was appointed at the time by the Government to appear for those members of the Muaupoko not otherwise represented. My advice to the people was that they should separate themselves from Kemp and Warena. I think that was the only advice I gave them. I hope the Court will not believe that I told them to tell lies. I thought at the time, and think so still, that I had a more intimate knowledge of what took place in 1886 than any of them had. Ido not remember the special conversation to which Hema Henare refers, but I do not dispute the accuracy of it. It is the general tenor of what my advice was, not specially with regard to No. 14 or to any particular section. So far as I know, No. 14 was never given to Kemp. It is entirely untrue that I told any of Muaupoko to give false evidence in order to injure Kemp. I had no object in doing so. They gave the different stories because it suited them. That is the only explanation that I can give of it. I was not in their confidence. It is unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that they would listen to me. All I remember about the deed of release is that I asked Hoani Puihi if he was agreeable to the quarter-acres going. He said he was not, and told me that he had applied to Native Land Court to have title to quarter-acres investigated. Beyond that I have no knowledge of ever having referred to the deed of release, except in evidence before the Commission, when I said it was binding on all who had signed it. I admit that I stated that Kemp had acted prejudicially to the people. Makere and Bawinia came to my office and tendered to me certain information, upon which they afterwards acted. I did not send for them. I understood that they had been represented by Sir W. Buller. They came to me about the rights of Pariri to the land and the claims of the rerewaho. They admitted that the rerewaho had the same rights as those in the original certificate. Ido not think No. 14 was referred to at all. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness :■ I admit the general accuracy of the conversation with Makere and others commencing "Ka mate koutou i te kiri-hipi." What I meant was that the tribe had given Kemp a general release from all obligations, but No. 11 had nothing to do with that at all. By "Xi te mate a Te Keepa ka riro te whenua i ana uri" I meant that whatever they might say to Kemp personally would not apply to his heirs as to No. 11. I knew that the Commission was sitting to ascertain whether Kemp was a trustee or not. I was aware that from 1890, and at time of Commission, he declared himself to be a trustee for Muaupoko. My objection to Kemp's position was that he would not state who he was trustee for, the term "Muaupoko " being indefinite. I was present in Court when the deed of release was put in by you and read in open Court. I remember saying then that it was binding on all who had signed it, provided that it had been executed with legal formality. I also stated at the time that I would not be a party to repudiation on the part of any Maori. I cannot quote any passage in deed of release that would justify my expression " Kuamate koutou." I considered that it had indorsed all Kemp had done, and that was wrong, because there were some things he had done which I did not consider right. I said long before the Commission sat that Muaupoko were prejudiced by the deed of release. I used the expression " Kua mate koutou " after I had said that all who had signed the deed of release were bound by it. I was present when you put in a retainer signed by a large number of Muaupoko, for whom you were allowed to appear. The names were read out, and no one objected. The retainer was signed in 1892. I believe that when I had the conversations with Makere, Bawinia, and Hema I knew they had signed your retainer. At any rate, I assumed that they had. Sir W. Buller: Do you think it was honourable or fair on your part, knowing these people were my clients, to interfere with them in the manner described without any communication with myself, especially seeing how serious were the consequences to myself, and the cause which I was advocating ? Mr. A. McDonald : First, I did not think they were your clients ; second, if they were your clients you were not acting fairly by them ; thirdly, as a friend I had told you exactly what had occurred according to my memory in 1886. Therefore, as a friend, I was dealing with you in an honourable manner, and as an agent in the Native Land Court, I was doing my best for my clients. Sir W. Buller: Then, Mr. McDonald, you consider the reasons you have given justified you in an interference which, according to the admissions of four Natives, led them to commit wilful and corrupt perjury before the Commission, with the avowed view of depriving Major Kemp of land that belonged to him ? Mr. A. McDonald: In the first place, I totally deny that I incited any one to commit perjury. In the second place, I allege that No. 14 was never, so far as I know, given to Kemp. Sir W. Buller: At the time of these communications you were acting as paid servant of the Government, under written instructions from the Hon. J. McKenzie?

G.—2a

141

Mr. A. McDonald : I was acting under the authority of the Minister of Lands, for the protection of the Muaupoko Tribe as against Sir W. Buller, - Major Kemp, and Warena Hunia. I was paid by the Government at the close of the Commission for my services, I think, about £120 or £125. I undertook the duty con amore and most heartily. Practically, with the exception of Hoani Puihi, I had not been retained by Muaupoko until the Government employed me. I was aware that for a long time previous to the Commission Hoani Puihi was on Warena Hunia's side, but I accepted his retainer on the understanding that he was against both Kemp and Warena. I had not seen the deed of release at the time, but I must have been aware that there was a deed of release. I did not know that Hoani Puihi had not signed the deed of release. In the beginning of 1890, before the Court sat, I was acting as an agent of the Native Land Court, and as a friend of Kemp's, not specially m the interests of the Hunia family; but when No. 11 was called on in the Native Land Court, and Kemp set up the theory of a trust, I was retained by Donald Fraser, acting under power of attorney from Warena Hunia, as interpreter for Mr. Barnicoat, solicitor for Donald Fraser. In 1886 I was acting for the Manawatu Eailway Company, not for the Hunia family. Before 1886 I was always opposed to you and Kawana Hunia. 1 am perfectly sure that I never put myself forward in any way, or purported to be the accredited agent of Kawana Hunia, before 1886 in connection with Horowhenua. If you satisfy the Court that I did act as Hunia's agent before 1886 in Horowhenua I will admit that I have forgotten. I will not say that my memory has played me false. [Letter from Mr. McDonald to Mr. Bridson, official No. 83/714, dated the 12th July, 1883, read to witness.] I admit that I wrote that letter. I was his agent in writing that letter, but I was. not Kawana Hunia's agent in connection with Horowhenua. He was a friend of mine. lam not aware that the official papers in the Native Department were at that time open only to accredited agents or solicitors. My only agency for Kawana Hunia was writing the letter quoted. [Pamphlet containing statement of Warena Hakeke relating to Horowhenua Block produced.] I did not assist Mr. Barnicoat in preparing that statement. lam not responsible for one word, of it. I differed with Mr. Barnicoat regarding it in 1891, and received no more pay from Mr. Donald Fraser. I told Donald Fraser and Mr. Barnicoat, also Wirihana Hunia, that they were all wrong. I gave evidence before a parliamentary committee in 1892. I presume I was paid by Mr. Donald Fraser, but I do not remember. So far as I remember, Makere and Bawinia came to my office together. That was the only occasion on which Bawinia came to my office. Ido not remember ever sending Mohi Bakuraku for Bawinia, but if I did it was to consult her about the hapus. Kerehi Tomo had said that the divisions were wrong. I have never informed you about the communications I had with your clients down to the present time, although we have been in friendly communication ever since. I have often told you that you were misleading the tribe. I wish to say now, as a licensed agent of this Court, that if I have done anything unworthy I hope this Court will cancel my license. If the Court does not do so I shall conclude that it does not consider the charges made against me have been substantiated. Mr. Fraser's case closed. Mr. Fraser stated that he would hand in tuhakapapa on Monday. The Court adjourned till the 26th instant.

Levin, Monday, 26th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Mr. Fraser said he was not yet prepared to hand in the whakapapa of his clients. The Court stated that this case was called on for the purpose of adjourning it till to-morrow. Case adjourned till the 27th instant. The Court said there were two matters that might be gone on with, but it understood that an adjournment was desired, on account of the death of Paki te Hunga. Mr. John Broughton and Raraku Hunia asked the Court to adjourn till to-morrow. Sir W. Buller, Mr. J. M. Fraser, Mr. McDonald, and all the Maori conductors supported the application. The Court said, as all parties were agreed, the adjournment would be granted; but before adjourning it would give its decision as to the existence of a trust in Horowhenua No. 6. It also desired to be informed whether Mr. McDonald intended to give further evidence in respect of No. 12, as indicated by him on Saturday. Mr. McDonald, in reply, stated he did not intend giving further evidence if the Court would take the evidence given by him on a previous occasion as read; otherwise he would ask the leave of the Court to give evidence against the existence of a trust. The Court stated that it would treat Mr. McDonald's evidence as read, if he desired that this course should be adopted, and give its decision to-morrow morning. The following decision was then given in respect to the existence of a trust in No. 6 :— In re No. 6, called on, Application of Baraku Hunia and Others. In the matter of section 4 of" The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," and in the matter of Subdivision No. 6 of the Horowhenua Block, and of the application of Baraku Hunia and others to be beneficially entitled to the aforesaid_ parcel of land : Upon hearing the evidence of Keepa te Bangihiwinui and others as to the existence of a trust, and upon reading the evidence of Hoani Puihi and others before the Boyal Commission on the Horowhenua Block, held in 1896, the Court is. of

Gk—2a

142

opinion that a trust did exist in respect to the said Subdivision No. 6 for certain persons who had been omitted from the certificate of the Horowhenua Block issued by the Native Land Court in 1873; and this Court doth adjudge and declare that a trust does exist in favour of the persons whose names are included in the Second Schedule of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," in such relative shares as may be determined proportionately to their respective interests. The Court adjourned till the 27th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 27th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Sir W. Buller asked that this case might stand over till to-morrow, as Kemp had not arrived. The Court stated that the case would be adjourned till to-morrow. Case adjourned till the 28th instant. The Court announced that there were two cases that might be gone on with, but it did not intend to do more now in regard to Subdivision No. 12 than to give its decision on the question of trust or no trust, as, if a trust was declared, it would be necessary to hear and consider all the evidence in No. 11 before determining the relative interests in No. 12. Hoeowhenua No. 12: Application of Baraku Hunia and Others, claiming to be beneficially interested. The Court gave its decision, and declared that a trust existed, and notified that the evidence given on the inquiry as to relative interests in No. 11 would be sufficient to enable it to decide the relative rights in No. 12. (For decision see page 145.) No further evidence would be necessary. It proposed to go on with the inquiry as to relative interests in No. 6, as far as it could be done to-day. Raniera te Whata asked that No. 6 might be adjourned till Kemp arrived. The Court said there was no occasion to wait for Kemp, who could make any statement he chose, when he arrived, as to the rights of parties in No. 6. The shortest plan would be to read out the list of names in the Second Schedule to the Act, and challenge objectors. Mr. J. M. Fraser appeared for Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32 to 35 inclusive, 37, 38, 40 to 43 inclusive, 21. Sir W. Buller appeared for Nos. 16, 46, 45, 47, 48. Hamuera Karaitiana appeared for Nos. 19, 20, 5, 44, 22, 26, and 4. Rawiri Rota appeared for Nos. 36, 28, 29, 39. Mr. McDonald appeared for No. 31. Hoeowhenua No. 6: Baraku Hunia and Others, claiming to be beneficially interested. The Court said the chief business was to ascertain the relative rights of the persons in Second Schedule of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," in Horowhenua No. 6. List of names read out by the Court. It was announced that the proceedings would be under the provisions of section 5 of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896." Mr. J. M. Fraser stated that he was instructed by his clients that the rights of all were equal, and that certain individuals in the list who had not occupied the Horowhenua Block, and others who were not Muaupoko and have no occupation, are entitled to such area as the Court may direct shall be allotted to them. There were nine in the list who, he asserted, had little or no occupation —viz. : (16) Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu, (19) Meri Nireaha, (20) Pirihira Nireaha, (22) Ngahina Eruera, (31) Bawe-a-Taraua, (39) Te Ahuru Porotene, (46) Pane Korana, (47) Peri Korana, and (48) Pehira Tuwharetoa. The objection to Nos. 46, 47, 48 was that they were not Muaupoko; as to the others, he admitted the shares were equal. Rawiri Rota stated that his clients objected to (40) Te Meihana Tupou, (46) Pane Korana, (47) Peri Korana, (48) Pehira Tuwharetoa, and (41) Mii Maunu. His clients agreed to all the others having equal shares. Hamuera Karaitiana did not object to any in the list. He asked the Court to take into consideration any whose names were in the list who were not born in 1873. Mr. McDonald : A list of those omitted in 1873 was made in 1886, as I understood, by the Muaupoko, who were assembled in Palmerston. The list contained forty-four names. So far as he knew, Muaupoko were not interfered with in preparing list which was presented to Kemp. The persons in the list were said to be in the same position as those in No. 3. He pointed out to Muaupoko, and specially to Kemp, that the Court had no power to import new names into title, but he suggested that the Court might be asked to award a certain area of land to Kemp or any other to convey to the forty-four persons. The suggestion was agreed to, but he had not charge of the list. The Court awarded 4,600 acres. In 1890 he inquired for list. Kemp did not know. A list was afterwards found containing forty-five names. The Boyal Commission added three more. He regarded No. 6 as part of division of the Horowhenua Block, and that none of Muaupoko had any right to object to it. Sir W. Buller had no objection to make to any in the list. Rawiri Rota stated that the objections to Nos. 40, 46, 47, 48, and 41 were that they had no occupation —that Mii Maunu was dead in 1886, He objected to No. 45 because he was not born in 1873.

143

G.—2a,

The Court said it would not be necessary to call any evidence as to those who were not objected to. The procedure would be that the objectors substantiate their objections. Mr. J. M. Fraser said his objection to Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu was that he had no' personal occupation of this land. His mother had withdrawn her claim to No. 11 because she had no occupation. He proposed that Taitoko te Uruotu should have half an interest. With reference to Meri Nireaha and Pirihira Nireaha, a great deal of evidence was given in No. 11 on Bihipeti's occupation. Her children were born away from the land, and remained away. He contended that they could not be placed in the same position as Baraku and others who had lived on the land. His side held that they should have one share between them. Ngahina Eruera, daughter of Paki te Hunga, who has not lived permanently on this land :No attempt made to show that Ngahina ever lived here. Proposed that she be awarded half a share. As to Bawe-a-Taraua, there is simply the ancestral right from Te Bangihikaka. No attempt to show occupation since his time ; ancestral right cold. His clients contended that Bawe-a-Taraua should have a nominal interest, especially as she has shared in the £6,000 paid for State farm. Te Ahuru Porotene, youngest child of Hereora : Mother had rights. Son was not born at Wanganui. Never been here. Pane Korana: Not a descendant of the ancestor to whom this land belonged. Not identified with Muaupoko. She may have occupied Horowhenua, but it was as the wife of Te Bopiha. Only entitled to nominal interest. ;Peri Korana : Same position as Pane Korana. Cannot ascertain that he has any ancestral right. Pehi Tuwharetoa: No ancestral right. Lived here for a time many years ago; went away to Wanganui, and has remained there. Not identified with Muaupoko. No right whatever. Mii Maunu died in 1884; she was the daughter of Tamati Maunu, and lived continuously at Horowhenua. Should be in the same position as other living owners in 1873. Meihana Tupou is a descendant of Te Piro, and one of the children of Peti Kohu who has lived on this land. Meihana came back from the other Island years ago, and has lived here ever since. Hema Henaee, on his former oath. Witness: I have heard the objections taken by you to the names in the rerewaho list. We instructed you to make these objections. Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu came here after the Court of 1890; he stayed with Hoani Puihi, whose daughter he married. They separated, and he left. I never saw his mother living here. Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu lives permanently at Palmerston. I know Meri and Pirihira Nireaha ; they have never lived on this land ; they live at Ngaawapurua. Ngahina Eruera lives at Turakina. Never lived here, on any part of the block. Bawe-a-Taraua has never lived here; lives at Bangitikei. Te Ahuru Porotene has never lived here ; his mother has. Pane Korana lived here with Te Bopiha, a Ngatiraukawa. She is not a Muaupoko. She has always lived with Ngatiraukawa. People have said that she was an illegitimate child of my father. After Te Bopiha died she continued to live with Ngatiraukawa here, the descendants of Whatanui. Peri Korana is not a descendant of the ancestors to whom this land belonged that I know of. He lived here for a short time. Was sent away. He lived at Manawatu, and then went to Waipawa, where he lives now. •He was here when the Commission sat. Not a Muaupoko. Pehira Tuwharetoa is not a descendant of the ancestors to whom this land belonged ; he lived here many years ago—long before 1873. Left before that year, and has never returned. I think Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu, Meri and Pirihira Nireaha, and Ngahina Eruera should have half-shares. Mii Maunu was a daughter of Tamati Maunu ; died in 1884. She lived at Horowhenua permanently, and died here. Meihana Tupou lives on No. 11; he is a cripple, in receipt of charitable aid. He returned here from the South Island a few years ago. His mother has lived here permanently. Hori Wirihana is the son of Wirihana Tarewa and Bahira. Lived here permanently. He was born in 1872. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : Mii Maunu's name was put in at time of Boyal Commission by Hanita. The whole tribe agreed. Te Baraku was here and did not object. She had rights from Pariri and other ancestors. I heard the rerewaho discussed in 1886. Did not see any list. We did not hand any list to the Court of 1890. Te Ahuru Porotene has never lived here; he cannot be said to be one of those who were improperly omitted in 1873. Meihana Tupou is not in the same position as Te Ahuru. He is living here now. He came here in 1889. Hoani Puihi asked that the name of Kaewa te Bina be added to the list of rerewaho. The Court informed him that it had no power to add any names. Cross-examined by H. Karaitiana. Witness : No. 6 was set apart for those who were omitted from the certificate of 1873. Ngahina Eruera was not put in the certificate of 1873; her brother, Eparaima te Paki, was. She has no right to this land. The fact that the mother of Meri and Pirihira was put in the certificate of 1873 does not give them a right to this block. I was not present when list of rerewaho was handed to Commission. I objected to some of the names when they were submitted to me. There are no cultivations or houses on No. 6. I have hunted and shot over it. lam entitled to more than Bihipeti's children and Ngahina Eruera because I have occupied the Horowhenua Block and they have not. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald.' Witness : I was at Court at Palmerston in 1886. I was in Palmerston, I attended some of Muaupoko meetings, not all. The list of 1873 may have been read out; Ido not know. Ido not know who first mentioned that some of the persons interested had been omitted in 1873. I heard Kemp and Ngataahi speaking about it. I heard the people discussing the matter, and I pointed out I had been omitted. Ngataahi also said that her name was left out; others did the same, and

a.—2a

144

Kemp promised that he would set apart a piece of land for us. I heard Bahira and Hanita inform the meeting that they bad been omitted. Kemp was present at the meeting. It was in the forenoon. I heard after the Court that 4,620 acres had been set apart for us, and that we were to get 105 acres each. I heard this after we had returned here. I was told that all those who were omitted from the certificate of 1873 were to have 105 acres each, the same as those in No. 3, and that there were forty-four. I was not in Court when the 4,620 acres was set apart. It was Kemp who agreed to set the land aside for us ; not a Muaupoko dissented. The proposal was publicly discussed. All the divisions of the block were fully discussed. Cross-examined by Sir Walter Buller. Witness : I understand that only ahika tuturu are to come into No. 11. That was the arrangement. There was no such arrangement with regard to No. 3. All Muaupoko were put there, whether ahika or not. No. 6 should be treated in the same way as No. 11. Kemp set apart No. 6 for those of Muaupoko who had been omitted in 1873, whether ahika or not —105 acres each. Ido not claim more than 105 acres; none should have more than that; I should not have less. Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu is a Muaupoko. Ido not think he should have as much as I. I agree to his having a half-share. Ido not think he cultivated here. He has only been back once since he left his wife. Ido not know whether he has any other lands. Pane Korana's mother was a Ngaitahu. She is living with Ngatiraukawa. She is not a Muaupoko. She took part with Ngatiraukawa against us. Peri Korana came here, and was sent away again at once for some offence ; I do not know that he is a Muaupoko. Pehira Tuwharetoa lived here a long time. Left here long before 1873, and never returned. He is only entitled to a nominal interest. I consider that those who are entitled should each have 105 acres, the balance to be divided among the persons whose rights are challenged. Mr. Fraser did not wish to re-examine, and had no more witnesses. Rawiri Rota withdrew his objection to Mii Maunu and Pehira Tuwharetoa and Hori Wirihana. Raraku Hunia agreed that the persons entitled should have 105 acres each, and that the balance should be divided among those who have no right. She considered that 20 acres each would be sufficient for those she objected to. Hamuera Karaitiana pointed out that Mii Maunu died before 1886. He stated that the evidence before the Court went to show that Bihipeti's ancestors and elders had occupied this land permanently. She herself lived here until she married. He contended that the objection to her children could not be sustained. He would leave the matter in the hands of the Court. He did not consider it necessary to call any evidence. Mr. McDonald having left the Court, Wirihana Hunia said he would give evidence on behalf of Bawe-a-Taraua. Wibihana Hunia on former oath. Witness : No 6 was set apart in 1886 for the persons of Muaupoko who were omitted from the certificate of 1873. Mr. McDonald suggested that it should be set apart, and told us that it could be done if the people agreed. The people did agree ;so did Kemp and I. I was not present when the list was made up, but I saw it in the evening, and approved of it. It contained the same names as those read out to-day. I objected to one name—that of Ngahina Eruera, and that is why the list was not handed into Court. In 1890 or 1891 I withdrew my objection, and Mr. McDonald took the list to the Court. None of Muaupoko objected to the list. I was not present when names were added to it by the Commission. In 1886 it was agreed that each of the forty-four persons in the list should have 105 acres. I believe there were forty-five names in the list prepared in 1886, but the area of the block set apart for them was calculated for forty-four. Bawe-a-Taraua's name was in the list of 1886. I think the Commissioners were wrong in adding three names to the rerewaho. I consider that all those in the list of 1886 should receive equal shares. Those added by the Commission I leave to the Court. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : I cannot trace Pehira Tuwharetoa from any of the ancestors who had a right to this land. His mother was a Ngatikokopu. I have heard that Peri Korana is a Ngatikokopu, I cannot trace him from any of the ancestors. Kemp and Eparaima Paki showed me the list of names of rerewaho in 1886. Kemp pointed it out to me lying on a table. I read it, and left it on the table. It was owing to my objection that Kemp did not take the list to the Court in 1886. Kemp, Eparaima, and I knew there were forty-four names on it. Te Paki te Hunga gave it to me in 1890. Hanita found it in Kemp's room at Te Awapuni. It was the same list that I had read in 1886. It was through me that No. 6 was not finally settled in 1886. Bawe-a-Taraua has never lived on Horowhenua Block, but I have the mana over this land and the people. Her mother, Te Bina, never lived on this land either. Kawana Hunia came here when necessary; he lived permanently at Bangitikei. Bawe-a-Taraua received her share of the proceeds of the State farm. She had no right to it without my consent. I told Ngahina Eruera at Parewanui that she should have no land. This was before 1886—three or four years before. Ngahina Eruera was not put in Bangatira. Sir W. Buller : No questions. Rawira Rota : No questions. Cross-examined by H. Karaitiana. Witness : Ido not agree with the evidence given by Hema. It was agreed in 1886 that the forty-four persons were to have 105 acres each. The Court adjourned till the 28th instant.

G.—2a.

Hoeowhenua No. 12: Judgment of Court as to existence of Trust. In the matter of section 4 of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," and in the matter of Subdivision No. 12 of the Horowhenua Block, comprising 13,137 acres, and of the application of Baraku Hunia and others claiming to be beneficially entitled to the aforesaid parcel of land : Upon hearing the evidence of Keepa te Bangihiwinui as to the existence of a trust in respect of the aforesaid section, and upon reading the evidence of Hoani Puihi and others in support thereof, and also the evidence of Alexander McDonald and Wirihana Hunia in opposition thereto, the Court is of opinion that the weight of evidence tends to show that it was intended that Ihaia Taueki, in whose favour the land was allotted by the Native Land Court in 1886, should hold the same in fiduciary capacity, and not otherwise; and the Court doth adjudge and declare that a trust was intended to exist, and does exist, in respect of the aforesaid section in favour of such of the persons included in the Second and Sixth Schedules to " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," who may be ascertained to be beneficially entitled.

Levin, Wednesday, 28th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 6 resumed : Baraku Hunia and others, applicants. Rawiri Rota withdrew objection to Meihana Tupou. Sir W. Buller called Major Kemp. Keepa te Bangihiwinui sworn. Witness [List of names in Second Schedule read to witness] : It was my own idea to set apart land for those who were omitted in 1873. The tribe agreed to it. Some of those in the list read out were not put in by me. My list was handed to Boyal Commissioner. Waata Tohu has a copy of it. [Document obtained from Waata Tohu and read to witness.] Eight of the names in this list not in Schedule No. 2. The list just read is the one I left with you to hand to the Commission. Taitoko-ki-te-uruotu is one of those I had in my mind when drawing up the list; he is a descendant 6f Ngawhakawa, who was taken prisoner at Mahurangi by Ngatiawa. He is entitled' to an equal share with the others, in my opinion. The tribe say he should have a half-share only. Pehira Tuwharetoa lived here permanently till I took him away. He came here before Treaty of Waitangi. I gave him a wife in Wanganui, and he has remained there ever since. In my opinion he is entitled to a full share. He came here to the tangihanga when my father died. He has always been ready to return and fight for Horowhenua if occasion arose. Pane Korana Ido not know about. I put her in at the instance of Muaupoko. She is not one of those I had in mind when I made provision, for those who had been omittted. Peri Korana is, I think, entitled to a half-share. That would meet her case. Bawea Taraua is not entitled to anything. I suppose McDonald put her name in. I never agreed to it. Meri Nireaha and Pirihira Nireaha I approve of. Their mother lived here. I agree with the tribe that they should have a half-share each. Ngahina Eruera should have a full share; she is a daughter of Te Paki. Baniera Matakatea is entitled to a full share. Nati Amorangi should have a full share. Hana Bata is entitled to a full share. Baraku Hunia, full share. Mii Maunu was dead before provision was made; nominal interest sufficient. Ani Patene deserves a full share. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser. Witness : Pehira Tuwharetoa returned here about 1870, and assisted to build Pipiriki. After Court of 1873 he returned to Wanganui. He is a Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura. Ido not know that he is a descendant of any of the ancestors I have set up as owners of Horowhenua. Mii Maunu died here, but she did not live here permanently. Her father lived here after peace was made. She lived first at Bangitikei, then at Waikawa. Te Paki came here as a child, went away to Wairarapa, and then to Bangitikei. Never lived here permanently. Ngahina Eruera has never lived here. I admit her because she has ancestral rights. Te Paki came here to fight for Horowhenua; that is ahika, or was in olden times. I did not show Wirihana Hunia any list of rerewaho in 1886. If he says I did he speaks falsely. I never had any list in 1886. It is quite untrue that I showed him a list of names, and that he objected to the inclusion of Ngahina Eruera. I repeat that I had no list of names in 1886. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness : I admit the rights of Te Ahuru Porotene; he is a son of Hereora, and should have a full share. Cross-examined by H. Karaitiana. Witness : I set apart this land in 1886 for those of my people who had been omitted in 1873. I intended that their shares should be equal, but I think that those who were born away from the land, and have lived away, should be satisfied with half-shares, as there is so little land left for the residents. Warakihi was a Hamua, and had no right here. Toheriri and Takare were Ngaiteriunga. They were Hamua —my section of Hamua. Bihipeti's children are not nearly related to them. I do not admit that Bihipeti is as nearly connected with Toheriri as I am. I deny it. Manihera te Bau got 105 acres in No. 3, but he lived here permanently, and assisted to retain the land. He had no ancestral right. The Muaupoko gave him 105 acres out of gratitude. I do not admit that Bihipeti's elders and ancestors had rights here. They were Ngaitupoho, whose lands were south of this. They only came here when they were driven off their own lands. It is only lately that I have come to the conclusion that the shares in No. 6 should not be equal,

19— G. 2a.

145

G.—2a

146

Cross-examined by Wirihana Hunia (Mr. McDonald being absent). Witness : I heard that an application was made to succeed Bangirurupuni in 1890. Was not in Court when case came on. Do not know to whom the interest was awarded. Pane Korana may have been one of the successors. No. 6 was set apart for the rerewaho in 1886. It was said that there were forty-four persons, and the area was calculated on that number, but the names were not settled at the time. I had no clerk in 1886; the tribe had. Eparaima te Paki was one of their clerks. Ido not know of any list of names being handed to me in 1886. If there had been I would have given it to the Court. I never saw any list, either for No. 6or No. 9, or both blocks would have been settled at the time. Ido not remember Mr. Fraser going to Turakina to fetch Eparaima te Paki to Palmerston in 1890 in connection with the list of names, nor do I remember Mr. Fraser telling me that Eparaima had sworn to the list. I repeat that you did not object to Ngahina Eruera in 1886. You were silent at that time, and allowed your Europeans to do all the talking for you. The tribe left it to me to select the names for No. 6. You said nothing. You remained silent about No. 6, as you did about other matters. It is only lately that you have asserted yourself. The tribe did not approve of you in 1886. I and the tribe arranged all the subdivisions of Horowhenua in 1886. You took no part until we went into Court about No. 11. You said nothing before the people outside. If you had objected to my selecting the names for No. 6it would have made no difference. Be-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness: Pehira Tuwharetoa signed lease of 1867 to McDonald. He took an active part in connection with the land at that time. Sir W. Buller: That closes my case. Case closed. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Claimant's Case. Sir W. Buller asked the Court to note that Mr. Bartholomew had timber rights over No. 6. He hoped those rights would be protected. Sir W. Buller : I propose to call Kemp only in support of his case. I hope to get through it in a very short time. Kemp wishes me to say that he would like to give the whole history of the case, but that would take too long. I have pointed out to him that his whole case is before the Court. He will therefore state briefly his position in connection with No. 11. He will explain how this reserve was made for the benefit of the Muaupoko people, inasmuch as he was the chief factor in the business. He will state that it was meant for the ahika tuturu of the Muaupoko— that the intention in 1886, as far as he and the tribe were concerned, was to make provision for the surviving members of the Muaupoko then living on the land, or having recognised claims to it. He will state that his view was and is that the persons found to be entitled should share and share alike. His desire is that every resident member shall have his cultivations cut out and secured to him or her, and that the suburban part of the block should be divided equally as to area and value. With regard to himself, he is anxious to satisfy the Court beyond all doubt that on the line of ancestry and occupation he had as good acclaim to the land as any other member, if not better; but after hearing his evidence on the point the Court will find that he does not seek anything for himself, his object being to provide for those of his tribe who are entitled to share in the estate; but he is most anxious that none of those for whom provision was made should be excluded, and for that reason he is anxious to go through the list name by name, for the purpose of indicating who, in his view, should participate in the block. He has had an opportunity of perusing the evidence given in his absence, and is of opinion that one or two who are entitled are being excluded by the people. He is anxious to give as much information as he can with regard to these, and then leave the matter in the hands of the Court. He will say that, although no express arrangement was made regarding the persons who had died, it was intended to provide for the living -members only. He hopes the Court will coincide with this view, to prevent some getting an undue proportion of the block. He is of opinion that all the children in the certificate should receive equal shares with the others, inasmuch as these are the men and women for whom he was making provision ; and, although he will ask for nothing for himself, he will pray the Court to make a public reserve of the Horowhenua Lake, with a sufficient ring of land around it, as a perpetual reserve for the Muaupoko Tribe, so that all members of the tribe can have access to it for fishing and other purposes? The area to be reserved around the lake he leaves to the Court, but he hopes that it will be large enough to be planted. He will ask the Court to vest the reserve in himself, or any one else approved of by the Court, as a permanent inalienable reserve for Muaupoko. The Court will understand that it is by the advice of counsel that Kemp gives only a brief outline of his case, and that his own wish was to go fully into the matter. I will call Major Kemp. The Court said there was power to make the reserve, and suggested that Muaupoko should nominate some one for the position of trustee. Keepa te Bangihiwinui on former oath. Witness : I remember the Court of 1886, and our proceedings in connection with the partition of the block. It was divided into fourteen parcels by voluntary arrangement. Awards were made by Judge Wilson in pursuance of the voluntary arrangement. No. 1.1 was awarded to Warena and myself in trust. When I undertook that trust I supposed that I was trustee for the tribe—for part of the tribe—those who were ahika. The reason it was not divided was that I intended it for the people to live on. It was for the living owners—those living in 1886. I could not bring back the dead owners. It was my intention that all the ahika should share alike, because they had no other land left. I desired to rehabilitate the tribe, hoping that it might become as numerous as it had formerly been. The lake was included in the land set apart. I intended that 3 chains should

147

a.—2a

be reserved round the Horowhenua Lake, and on both sides of the Hokio Stream down to the sea. The same with Ngakawau. I included Horowhenua Lake in the land for the people for fear it should be drained. It has always been the food-supply of the people, from the time of my ancestors till now, and is highly prized. I considered that for others than ahika I had made sufficient provision in No. 3. I think so now. I desire that each of the residents should be secured in their homes. Those whose kainga are inside the reserve should shift their houses back, and plant trees on the reserve, to beautify it. In determining the relative rights of the parties, I ask the Court to consider the difference in values of the land. I ask the Court to vest the lake and the reserve round it in a trustee, to be chosen by the people. I would like the Ngakawau Lake reserved also ; but that is my own idea, not the people's. I hope the Hokio Stream will be vested in a trustee, so as to prevent damage to the lake by improvident people. My intentions in 1886 were understood and acquiesced in by the tribe. Not a single member of Muaupoko, great or small, objected. Nicholson's party wanted their land brought down to the stream, but I refused. I never heard of any discontent among Muaupoko until Warena claimed the land for himself. Ever since Warena claimed the absolute ownership of the land in 1890 down to the present time I have been fighting for the people. I have striven to put them back on the land, and I have succeeded in this Court. I have consistently held that the land belonged to the people. I have fought their battle in the Supreme Court, before Parliament, the Boyal Commission, and in this Court. If I had listened to advice, and kept the land for myself, the people would have had nothing, because the promises made to them by Warena and party were never intended to be fulfilled. lam an ahika. I have rights by ancestry and occupation. I have already given my ancestry. Parianiwaniwa lived at Kouturoa. Te Biunga lived there also. Parianiwaniwa also lived at Pakaka and Ta te Arero, and is buried at Kouturoa. Te Ahiahi also is buried at Kouturoa. Kiri-tuamango married Euhina, and had Tanguru. They cultivated at Ta te Arero, Kouturoa. They sometimes lived and cultivated at Papaitonga. Te Eiunga went there. Tanguru cultivated at Kouturoa, Waitiu, Ngurunguru, Te Watutua. I worked at two latter places. Other cultivations were Wharetauira. Tanguru cleared there. My father and I came here about time of Haowhenua. I lived at Manawatu sometimes, and at Wanganui. Tanguru died here, and is buried on No. 11 —I think, at Komakorau. Since my father's death I have come backwards and forwards to Horowhenua constantly. lam the mouthpiece and supporter of the people. My father left the people in my care. I was instrumental in getting this land put through the Court in 1873. I took an active part in driving Ngatiraukawa off Horowhenua when they encroached. I acted as trustee in respect of the whole block, and managed the affairs of the tribe from 1873 to 1886. Since 1886 Warena and I have held No. 11 in trust for the ahika. I have never allowed my father's fires to go out. I have protected the Horowhenua estate down to the present time. Although I have had other and larger tribes to care for my chief concern has been for Muaupoko. Ido not ask the Court to give me any part of No. 11 for myself. I am satisfied with having recovered possession of it for my people, and put them on the land. Ido not ask to have my name put in the title. All I wish is to vindicate , my fair name before I die, and to find that my people have recovered possession of what Wirihana Hunia and the Government have attempted to deprive them of. Eora Hakaraia is my sister ; she grew up here, and lived here till she married Hakaraia. Her Wanganui relatives took her away. She has returned here to bring food for Muaupoko. Her fires have not gone out. She cultivated at the places I have mentioned. At time of Christianity I found her living here with my father. I built a church at Te Puata because Tanguru quarrelled with Mr. Hadfield. Wiki Keepa has not lived here. As I have given up my share in the land Ido not ask that she should be admitted. Haruru-ki-te-rangi is an ahika through his mother. Ariki Hanara is dead, If he died before 1886 he should not be admitted. I leave him to the Court. Waata Tohu is an ahika ; his mother lived here. Ido not know when she came. I saw her here. She was drowned in the Manawatu. Went there from Horowhenua. Do not know where Waata was born. In my opinion, his fire has not gone out. He was here before Christianity. He is a true Muaupoko by ancestry from Wahine Mokai and Euatapu. I think he should have a full share in No. 11. His mother cultivated at Te Kawiu and with Himiona ma. Merehira Tohu, sister of Waata : Same position as Waata Tohu. Eora Tohu, sister of Waata: Same rights. Merehira Waipapa, daughter of Eora Tohu : Has rights from her mother. lam not clear about her. The following are ahika: Ihaia Taueki, Tiripa Taueki, Hapeta Taueki, Haare Taueki, Eiarona Taueki, Makere te Eou, Oriwia Mitiwaha, Hera Tupou, Hariata Ngamare, Tuhi Hori, Mohi Eakuraku, Kaiwhare Eakuraku, Wiremu te Pae, Tapita Himiona, Parahi Eeihana, Noa te Whata, Pirihira te Whata, Eaniera te Whata, Heta Noa, Heta te Whata' (died before 1886), Ngahuia Heta, Ani Kanara te Whata, Eiwai te Amo (died before 1886), Mii Maunu (died before 1886), Hariata Tinotahi, Euka Hanuhanu, Hema Henare, Hanita Henare, Kerehi te Mitiwaha, Norenore te Kerehi, Warena te Kerehi, Heni Kuku, Wirihana Tarewa (died before 1886), Eahira Wirihana, Henare Hanuhanu, Eiria Peene, Harirota Taare, Bewi Wirihana, Hori Wirihana, Hoani Puihi, Hiria Amorangi, Bipeka Winara, Kingi Puihi, Euta te Kiri, W T iremu Matakatea, -Eoka Hanita, Heta Matakatea, Miriama Matakatea, Eaniera Matakatea ( Tamati Maunu (died before 1886), and Peene Tikara. Pire Tikara I leave to Court. Hana Eata only came here in 1886 ; not an ahika. Tiaki Tikara is not an ahika. Peti D.ku (died before 1886) and Pirihira Hau are ahika. Peri Korana is not an ahika; no occupation, nor had parents any. Pehira Tuwharetoa and Bangimairehau are α-hika. Eatima Potau is not an ahika. Bmeri Ngawhakawa, Taitoko-ki-te-uruotu, and Hapimana Tohu (died before 1886) are ahika. Teoti te Hau and Tamati Taupuku are not ahika. The following are ahika: Waitere Kakiwa (died before 1886), Eewiri te Whiumairanga (died before 1886), Eangirurupuni (died before 1886), Hopa te Piki, Hereora (died before 1886), Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki, Taare Matai, Taare Hereora, Kiri Hopa, Kahukore Hurunui, Te Ahuru Porotene, Earaku Hunia, Merehira te Marika (died before 1886), Mereana Matao, Eawinia Matao, Hetariki Matao, Bawinia Ihaia, Amorangi Eihara, Nati Amorangi, Matenga Tinotahi (died before 1886),

G.—2a

148

Mata. Hinekirangi, Bihara Tarakihi (died before 1886), Ema te Whango, Boreta Tawhai, Mananui Tawhai, Maata te Whango, Watarawi te Hau (died before 1886), Hopa Heremaia, Herewini Bakautihia (died before 1886), Hori te Pa, Hori Muruahi, Tahana Muruahi, Tamati Muruahi, Porana Muruahi, and Waata Muruahi. I approve of all those who came here in times of trouble. They ought not to be dispossessed, wherever they are now. The following are ahika : Henare Mahuika, Karaitiana Tarawahi, Kingi te Patu, Motai Taueki, Matene Pakauwera (died before 1886), Peti Kohu, Hone Tupou, Meihana Tupou, Ngariki te Baorao, Winara te Baorao, Oriwia Maiangi, Arihia Toitoi, Hiroti te Iki, Hakihaki te Wunu, Heni Haimona te Iki, and Hira te Bangitakoru. Manihera te Bau protected us in time of trouble ; I would not keep him out; he is an ahika. Mere Mionga (died before 1886) and Pirihira te Bau are ahika. Mere Mionga married her first husband here. Buihi Wunu is an ahika. Ani Kanara Tihore Ido not admit. Meretene Whakaewa (died before 1886) and Peeti te Aweawe (died before 1886) are not ahika. Hoani Meihana Ido not admit. Himiona Kohai and Inia Tamaraki (died before 1886) are ahika. Ihaka te Bangihouhia (died before 1886) is not an ahika. Iritana is an ahika. Kawana Hunia te Hakeke and Pane Korana are not ahika. Biwai te Amo is an ahika. Bawea Taraua is not an ahika. Wirihana Paeroa is not an ahika ; was here about two years. Warena te Hakeke is not an ahika. Tapita Himiona, and Wiki Hanita (died before 1886) are ahika. Akuira Takapo is not an ahika. Eparaima te Paki and Himiona Taiweherua (died before 1886) are ahika. Hetariki Takapo is not an ahika. Hetariki Matao is an ahika. Heni Wairangi (died before 1886) is not an ahika. The following are ahika: Maaka Ngarongaro (died before 1886), Meri Nireaha, Ngahina Eruera, Petera te Ha (died before 1886), Pirihira Nireaha, Paranihia Biwai, Bihipeti Tamaki, and Wiki Pua. I desire that all those I have- admitted should be included in this land. Bia Hamuera and Turuki are ahika. I leave the shares of those entitled to the Court. Some of the land is good; some is bad. Let the Court divide it. I thiuk all should share equally, and that the difference in quality of the land should be taken into consideration. The Court adjourned till the 29th instant.

Levin, Thursday, 29th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Claimant's Case —continued. Keepa te Bangihiwinui's examination-in-chief continued. Witness : I have heard that Muaupoko are dissatisfied with the evidence I gave yesterday, and I wish to explain that I have simply stated what my intention was in setting apart No. 11. It is for the Court to decide. Ido not think that ancestral right should be taken into consideration in ascertaining the people entitled. The following have not ahika : Topi Kotuku, Horopapera Atirangi, Karena Taiawhio, Buahoata, Hehe Whakaka, Hutana Whakaka, Hamiora Potau, Hori te Mawae, Aperahama te Bangiwetea, Whatahoro, Marakaia Tawaroa, Karaitiana Korou, Mihi te Bina Kawana, Bakera Potaka, Herariki Kawana Hunia, Bangipo Hoani, Mere Karena te Mana, and Harirota. Ngahuia Tirae is an ahika. Irihapeti Ihaia, Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, Wi Waaka, Ani Marakaia, Matiria Karaitiana, Miriama Piripi, and Harata te Koete are not ahika. Hoani Nahona is an ahika. Notwithstanding the disapproval expressed by the tribe, I am clear that the persons whose rights I have admitted are the proper persons to participate in No. 11. I have no selfish end to gain. I am anxious to conserve the tribe bearing my father's name. I have told the Court without any concealment who, in my opinion, are the right owners. lam equally clear that those whose names 1 have objected to have no right to come into this block, but I am quite willing to leave the whole matter to the judgment and discretion of this Court. I have already signed a document agreeing to leave the matter in the hands of the Court. Cross-examined by W. Kiriwehi. Witness : Ido not admit that Pariri had any rights here; her descendants acquired rights by intermarriage with, the rightful owners of the land. Te Ngarue and Puakiteao had rights here. Makere and Te Kerehi got their rights from those ancestors. I am a Hamua, but do not claim Horowhenua from that line. I suggested, myself, that No. 11 should be reserved for the living owners, in order to prevent some of them obtaining too large a proportion of the land by succession to deceased persons. Himiona te Hopu was a chief, and a descendant of the ancestors, whose rights I admiji/ He had rights here. Bia Hamuera is one of his nearest relatives. Cross-examined by Bawiri Bota. Witness: I consider that all the permanent residents, and those who assisted them in troublous times, are entitled to No. 11, without reference to ancestry. Put the ancestors aside altogether. Pa%ri was set up in 1890 by people who had no right to the land. They were looking for a take. Tamati Maunu went away to Bangitikei during the time of trouble, and returned after Christianity. It is true that Ihaka Bangihouhia came here from captivity before Christianity ; he went away to Bangitikei to live, and returned and died here. Te Biunga had an eel-pa in Hokio Stream called Te Mauri; it is mine now. When my father went to Arapaoa Noa and others used it. It is not true that Bangihikaka conquered Ngatikokopu. It was Te Piro who conquered them. Bangihikaka was one of his soldiers. Wirihana's statement that Te Baumatangi was given to Tairatu when he married Maewa is not true. The pa was the property of Tairatu. The statement of Ngatipariri that Potangotango and Buatapu had no right to the Hokio Stream is false.

149

G.—2a

Te Uira = Wairoto lived at Otaewa. Te Mou was their first child. Te Uira was killed there. My ancestors lived permanently around the Horowhenua Lake ; they hunted and fished in the forest and streams. Those who went away with the koura mawhitiwhi were brought back by Taueki ma in canoes procured from Nepia Taratoa, and Te Bangiwetea. Ido not consider they lost their rights by absence. My elders remained here permanently. I consider that the descendants of those who went away should share equally with the descendants of those who remained. Cross-examined by Henare te Apatari. Witness : Tireo, Te Biunga, and other children of Puakiteao all had rights in Horowhenua. Tihore was a child of Parianiwaniwa. Tihore I Hinerau te Kibi I Te Aweawe Ani Kanara Tihore was a relative of Te Kerehi's; that is why she lived with him. She previously lived at Porirua. I think Kerehi brought her here. In my opinion she has had sufficient in No. 3. She had an ancestral right. I do not think her successors should be admitted to No. 11, but I leave it to the Court. Meretene Whakaewa has also had sufficient, in my opinion ; she had an ancestral right through her mother. Her father was a toa, and fought side by side with Tanguru Taueki, Te Atua, and others. I do not admit Meretene's right to No. 11. I heard that Peeti te Aweawe came here once to settle a dispute. He was unsuccessful, and went away. The dispute was about a boundary, and continued until the land passed through the Court. Ngatikahungunu and other tribes assembled here, and fixed a boundary at Hokio. I would not consent to it, and did not rest satisfied until I had extended it to Waiwiri on the south and Ngatokorua on the north. Te Peeti had the same ancestral rights as myself, but Ido not admit him to No. 11. Te Peeti's sister came to me in 1886 to return their shares in Horowhenua to me. Kawana Hunia has no ancestral right to Horowhenua; he was put in on account of his relationship to the people. Te Peeti had an ancestral right to Horowhenua, but he never occupied; therefore I say he has had sufficient. Hoani Meihana came here as a visitor many years ago ; he did not assist us to retain the land ; he has had sufficient, and should not be admitted into No. 11. Te Kapuwae and Parianiwaniwa are buried at Kouturoa. Ido not know where Tihore was buried—somewhere in Manawatu. Hinerautekihi lived, died, and is buried at Manawatu. Te Aweawe, Ngawhakawa, and Tanguru always joined forces against their enemies. They lived together at Manawatu sometimes. They had ancestral rights there from Tawhakaiku, Mangere, and many-other ancestors. Cross-examined by Mr. Knocks. Witness : I say that I am the ancestor for this land because I have rights to it by ancestry and occupation, and because I have fought for it down to the present time. Another reason is that for many years I was the sole certificated owner. I held it in trust for the people. lam now relieving myself of the trust, and handing the land over to the people. I never heard that Te Whata-a-Ti's father-in-law gave him any land at Horowhenua. If the land had been given the gift could not have been set aside. Cross-examined by H. Karaitiana. Witness : I thought yesterday that Akuira Takapo was Bihipeti's father; that is why I said he had no right. If he is her brother he is au ahika. Peene Tikara has lived here for years ; so has Pire Tikara; they came here a long time ago and put sheep on the land. Hana Bata only came here a short time ago; her share in the rerewaho block is enough for her. I do not know whether she came here before Meihana Tupou, but his mother remained here, and kept his fires alight. Many people assisted me in connection with this land; the Ngatikahungunu, the Whanganuis, and Ngarauru were all ready to come to my aid if necessary. I suppose you are asking on behalf of Kawana Hunia. I have already stated that No. 11 was set apart in 1886 for the living resident owners only. I think those who were put in the pataka should remain there. I have no desire to deprive them of their shares nor do I think that they should receive any more. Wirihana Hunia said he had thought of putting a few questions to the witness in the absence of his conductor. Cross-examined by Wirihana Hunia. Witness: I claim a right to this land by ancestry and occupation, as well as my exertions in getting possession of the land for the people. My greatest claim is by ancestry, bravery, and occupation. My ancestors lived on this land continuously, and defended it from their enemies. Ngaitaikaka came to take it, and were repulsed by Tireo, Buatapu, and Potangotango. In the days of my parents attempts were made to seize the land. Our right to it has been disputed in my own time by Ngatiraukawa, Ngatitoa, and Ngatiawa. I resisted them successfully, as I have you since you claimed that No. 11 was your own. This is why I say that lam the ancestor of the people. Their land would have gone from them had it not been for me. Your father was content to allow the boundary to remain at Hokio. Cross-examined by Mr. J. M. Fraser.Witness: Kawana Hunia and I were associated in the troubles caused by Ngatiraukawa in Bangitikei, and he followed me to the Court for this land. He came here and caused trouble by burning Watene's houses. That was the first time he took any interest in preventing the encroachments of Ngatiraukawa. The second time was after the Court of 1873, when he burnt more houses, and was put into prison. I heard when I was away at the wars that a meeting was held at Kupe. Muaupoko called the meeting when Pomare arrived. Ido not know that Kawana Hunia had any-

a.—2a

150

thing to do with the killing of McDonald's cattle, or with the leases. I told Heta to kill the cattle; he impounded some of them. Pipiriki was my pa. I "instructed Heta to prepare the timber secretly, because I feared trouble. Kawana Hunia burnt the houses without authority, and I had to build the pa for our protection. The Muaupoko were correct in understanding that I set apart No. 11 in 1886 for the living resident owners; that was my intention. It would, I think, be unfair to put the deceased people in, because their successors would get an undue proportion of the block. Waata Tohu's right is from Buatapu and Wahine Mokai. Wahine Mokai = Watutua I Te Mawae I Tauira I Pipiriki I cannot trace this genealogy any further. Tori = Pipiriki Makehurangi = Te Aupouri (of Ngatikahungunu) Te Aupouri and Makehurangi both died here—at least, I believe so. Takipaukena lived on this land. I saw her here. She had a house at Pukearuhe. I saw Tamatea with his mother. Ido not remember seeing his sisters here. Tamatea has received large awards on the other side of the range through his father. He has also been awarded lands in Manawatu on his Tireo line, which comes down to his mother. Tamatea's parents lived in the Forty-mile Bush at times. He has not lived here since 1848. I have not seen his sisters living here, but they may have. I have not heard that they did. I have never seen them at all that I know of. Tamatea did not come here at the time of our trouble with Ngatiraukawa in 1870. None of the Ngatiraukawa did. He allied himself with Ngatiwhakatere against us in 1873. I know that Takipaukena lived permanently at Bongokorako when she was drowned in Manawatu. She was buried at Iwi te Kai, a Bangitane burial-ground. Buhina was my grandmother. Arawhita was her sister. Buhina lived on this land. Arawhita lived on this land, and went away with the tai-tai nunui. I do not know what became of her. Ido not know where her daughter Hou lived. Ido not know when Teoti Hou came here, or why he went away. I leave him to the Court. Emeri Ngawhakawa has rights here from occupation and ringakaha. Ngawhakawa went from Manawatu to Mahurangi; he had many places of residence. I do not know whether Emeri has been put in Bangitane land. Tauhinu went away with Kotuku, and died at Arapaoa; they left before fighting commenced. Mahuika, son of Tauhinu, remained at Arapaoa, and died there. His son Henare died in the South Island; he has not lived here. Mere Mionga married a Muaupoko man before she married Hauparoa. I was living in Manawatu when she married the latter. Ido not know where she lived before she married Hauparoa. Do not know when they were married. She has grandchildren in the list. She has not lived on the land since her marriage, Ido not know that her children or grandchildren have ever lived on the land. Mango was Mere Mionga's mother. She was a Ngatiapa. Tawhati and Mango sometimes lived at Bangitikei. Although Mere Mionga's children and grandchildren have been born away and remained away, I say that they are ahika. They have acquired lands through Mango and occupation at Turakina. Inia Tamarake was a Ngatiapa and Muaupoko. I took him away to be a soldier. He went from Turakina. He had been living there a long time. He never came back here to live. Died before 1886, and left no children. I say that Bihipeti and her two children should have full shares in No. 11. Although the children did not live on this land their ancestors did. Ido not know that they are likely to come here from Hawke's Bay to fish in the Horowhenua Lake. lam aware that Bihipeti has received large awards on the other side of the range. The position of Paki te Hunga is similar to that of Bihipeti as regards occupation, but he has ancestral rights. Bihipeti Tamaki and Paki te Hunga have always sided with Wirihana as against me in our quarrels, but that will not prevent me from doing what is right. In consequence of their action I was put to enormous expense in getting the, land back for the people. I have never given Bihipeti any money from No. 11. I sent the money to Makere to distribute. Paki te Hunga has not received any. My instructions were that none of the people who did not reside here were to have any of the rents from No. 11. I told the outsiders to leave it for the residents. None of the owners who lived away from Horowhenua ever asked me for any of the rent. Hura was the father of Bia Hamuera ; he married Whakaaturangi. I saw the latter here when I was young. She was married before Treaty of Waitangi. After marriage she lived at Bangitikei permanently. Sometimes came here on visits. She died and is buried at Bangitikei. Her daughter Bia was born at Bangitikei; lived permanently there ; came here on visits; brought food to Kupe. I consider she has an equal right with Ihaia Taueki. I do not know where Turuki lived before her marriage; she married Maru. After he died she married another man. On the death of her second husband she went to Wanganui. I leave her to the Court. She was a Ngatikura. Ngatikokopu and Ngatikura had no right to Horowhenua. I consider that Pehira Tuwharetoa and Turuki have a right to No. 11 by permanent occupation. The father of the former was a Ngatituwharetoa. His mother was a sister of Kawhakaanga, who had no right to this land. Pehira came here from Botoaira; went away with me in 1866, and has not lived here since. He attended the Court in 1873. I do not know Ngahuia Tirae to be a Muaupoko; she has always lived with Ngatiwhakatere. Never lived on this land, but her mother did till she was taken prisoner. She was a Muaupoko, and sister of Hapimana Tohu. Muaupoko have seen Ngahuia Tirae at Manawatu; not here. I say she is entitled as an ahika. Hapimana has kept her fires alight. Hiria Amorangi has always lived on this land. To Mr. Knocks : I do not remember whether Buihi Wunu ever contributed money towards expenses incurred in connection with this land. The Court adjourned till the 30th instant.

151

G.—2a

Levin, Feiday, 30th July, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Horowhenua No. 11 resumed. Claimant's Case —continued. Keepa te Bangihiwinui re-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : lam quite clear that Waata Tohu is a true Muaupoko. He was one of those who took the post to Ngatikorua. His mother made a Maori garment when she was living at Namuiti and called it " Horowhenua." Te Bangirurupuni gave it to Paraki. Taueki got it from Paraki, and kept it. She made another garment at Namuiti called "Te Takutai-o-waiuru," which Taueki also took. Hiria can prove this. Waata and his mother lived here after Christianity. His mother lived here before Christianity. Her first children were born on the block. Waata Tohu was born at Manawatu. It was after Kuititanga that Waata Tohu lived here with his mother. He went away about 1848. He went and came as the others did. To Court : The post I refer to is the one put up at Ngatokorua. I remember the arrangements come to in 1886, when some were put on the hills and others in other parts of the block. Some had better rights than others. There was not room for all down here. It was considered that those who were put on the hills were not entitled to any more. There was no room for them on the flat. It was not intended that they should come west of railway. That is the takekore. Waata Tohu was not looked upon as a takekore in 1886. I considered that, as Hoani Meihana and Peeti te Aweawe had assisted us in fighting for the land, they were entitled to something, but I intended this for the people, and I have not asked the Court to include Hoani and Peeti or myself. Bora would not listen to me, so I have not withdrawn her name. I have asked that my own daughter should not be put in. I ask that Hiroto te Iki should be put in, because Mere Mionga was a daughter of Tawhati, and notwithstanding that he was put in the pataka in 1886 with the consent of the people. I say that Kawana Hunia and his family have no right to this land by ancestry or occupation. There was nothing said about Kawana's rights in 1886. I treated him as a relative and a chief. Ancestral rights were not considered. The people were classified, but Kawana Hunia was not treated as a takekore, because he had been with me. The Hamua and Te Mawae and others were treated differently from Kawana and family because they were so distantly related. I put Warena Hunia in No. 11 with myself out of aroha to him. It was my fault. I should have listened to the objection made by the tribe. I see now that I was wrong and the tribe were right. I should have been guided by the tribe, and had the land awarded to myself only. I remember the Supreme Court referring the question of our relative rights in No. 11 to the Native Land Court. The case came before Judge Trimble. The Court awarded 8,097 acres to me, and 6,723 acres to Warena. I applied for a rehearing, which was heard in April, 1891. The Behearing Court upheld the former decision, but expressed the opinion that we held the land in trust. I and my witnesses testified in both Courts that Kawana Hunia and his family had no ancestral or occupatory rights. I was not satisfied with the judgment of the Court, and went to Parliament. I have always contended that the land belonged to the people. If I had agreed with Warena, where would the people be now? The takes to the land were gone into in 1890 and 1891, but not so fully as they have been before this Court. When the case was before the Court in 1890 Mr. McDonald asked me if we could not come to some arrangement. We met, and T offered the Hunia family 1,000 acres, but they refused it. Some days later McDonald came to me again and sugggested the advisableness of a compromise. I said whatever was done must be in writing. Karena said this was not necessary. Nothing came of it. I went to Wellington. . Donald Fraser followed me there. He, Hoani Taipua, and 1 met in a hotel. I offered Fraser 3,500 acres, and said I would keep the same area myself, the balance to be for the people. Fraser suggested that we should keep the best of the land for ourselves and give the tribe the sand. I refused, and said, " I will leave it to the people." We assembled the people at Pipiriki, and I gave them my share. The people would not agree to the proposals made by Fraser and party, and the negotiations ceased. I have never made any offer since. I made the offer in order to settle the matter. I knew at the time that Warena was a takekore, but he held a Land Transfer title, and was therefore master of the situation. The offer was made on my own responsibility, without reference to the tribe. To Assessor : Kawana Hunia did nothing in connection with this land till after 1873, when he burnt some houses, and was arrested for it. Pie was angry because I was put in the certificate by myself. Kupe was built for a meeting-house while I was away fighting. Ngatikahungunu and Hamua were invited to attend a meeting about a boundary. They decided that Hokio should be the boundary, and the meeting broke up. When I returned from the wars Heta came to me at Wanganui and told me about the boundary fixed by the committee, and that Mahoenui had been planted—potatoes had been put in. I told him to return and burn the houses at Mahoenui, pull up the potatoes, and destroy the fences, so that Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa might know that I objected to Ngatiraukawa planting there. This was done. Pene Taui remonstrated with me, on the ground that the boundary had been fixed by the committee at Hokio. As to the burning of the houses at Kouturoa, I sent to Muaupoko saying that I was coming here when I reached Bangitikei. Aperahama Tahunuiarangi and others joined me ; about twenty joined me. Hunia asked me what I was going for, and I replied that I was going on a visit. He, Mere. Mionga, and Mohi Mahi came on with us to Horowhenua. We found Muaupoko assembled at Kupe. In the evening it was said that Watene was living at Kouturoa. Hunia suggested that Watene's house should be burnt down. The proposal was discussed, and it was agreed to. I opposed it strongly. In the morning Kawana and some of his followers embarked in a canoe, went to Kouturoa, and burnt the houses. When they returned I was very angry, and sent the visitors away, telling them not to return. Kawana Hunia found he had gone too far, and left me to bear the brunt of his action. The lease of the

G.—2a.

152

land north of Hokio was executed by Muaupoko with my consent at Wanganui. Whatanui must have signed it when they returned here. I heard that Ihaia Taueki expressed his sorrow at No. 11 going from him in 1886, and I suggested that it should be awarded to them, but Te Kiri objected. Ihaia Taueki, Baniera te Whata, Hariata Amorangi, and Makere te Bou should, I think, have larger shares than others in No. 11. The children of Te Kiri and Hereora should be classed with them. To Court: I remember offering Warena 700 acres in 1888 in satisfaction of all his claims. [Letter from Warena to Kemp, dated 24th July, 1888, read.] That letter was a request to me,to give him part of No. 14, in order that he might lease it. I did not comply with his request. I gave him £100 instead, to pay his debts with. The sums of money I gave Wirihana Hunia were given to him out of aroha, not because I considered he had any right. I said in the Supreme Court that Warena had no right to ask me to account for moneys received by me from Horowhenua, and that it was the people I was responsible to. Addbess by Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui to Muaupoko. [Given by permission of Court at close of his evidence.] Give me your attention, 0 Muaupoko. I have given evidence on many occasions with reference to this land, Horowhenua—the land which the Land Transfer Act says is for Warena Hunia and myself only, and which has been awarded by the Native Land Court in accordance with the provisions of that Act. I have always held that this land belonged to the tribe. You are aware of my having taken it before the Native Land Court, and that Judge Trimble awarded it to us (two) alone, and divided it between us—one portion to Warena Hunia and the other to me; but I did not accept that decision, I applied for a rehearing. The case came before Judges Mair and Scannell. That Court was unable to do what I desired, and confirmed the former decision; but I derived some hope from an intimation in the judgment of the Behearing Court that if I took any steps in the future with the object of reinstating the people on their land the Judges would assist me. I then appealed to Parliament by petition, and appeared before a Committee. I petitioned Parliament three times, and appeared before a Committee on each occasion in support of my petition; but I found that Parliament was prevented by the Government from redressing the wrongs of my people. I therefore took proceedings in the Supreme Court, with the result that the people who had been out of their depths in the water stood upon dry land. Then my opponents appealed, but were defeated in the Appeal Court. The costs I incurred in the Supreme Court actions exceeded £1,000. After this the Government passed an Act enabling it to set up a Boyal Commission, and it was left to my opponents to appoint whoever they chose as Commissioners. These Commissioners absorbed a large portion of the land, inasmuch as the costs of the Commission have been made a charge upon Subdivision No. 12, and amount to the full value of the section. Now, the Commissioners accomplished nothing. The difficulties have increased. The Commissioners passed such severe strictures on me that I appeared at the bar of the Legislative Counil and addressed it. I protested against the improper proceedings of the Government, which had inflicted an injustice on me and my people. The Council was impressed by my address, and amended the Land Confiscating Bill introduced by the Government, so that this land should be placed in the hands of the Appellate Court which is now sitting. lam pleased, because all my actions are referred to this Court to consider and adjudicate upon. This land (Horowhenua) has been guarded by my ancestors and elders and by myself. The chieftainship of the land which my ancestors possessed has descended from them to me, and I still retain the mana over it. I will now say this : that when these troubles are settled by Judges Mackay and Butler their decision will be accepted as final and conclusive. All the difficulties in connection with this land are now in the hands of this Court, and the Court will carefully investigate them and decide them equitably. I have told the Court my ancestral right to this land, my mana rangatira and prowess in defending it. I have also testified as to my occupation, and no one can controvert my evidence. In conclusion, I have to request that my name and the name of my daughter, Wiki Keepa, be withdrawn. I give this land unreservedly to my people of Muaupoko. It is owing to my care of the land that it is available for them to-day. I now bid farewell to my land. Go, O my land, go ! This land will now go from my sight. For six years I have been endeavouring to get justice for my people, and have only now succeeded. I and my legal adviser tried many means, at great expense to myself; but this I do not regret, as my people are again on their land, and now they must protect themselves. I have to express my thanks to the Court for the pains it has taken to unravel these serious complications, and venture to hope that it will continue to do everything that is necessary to secure to each member of the tribe the portion of land to which he is entitled. If this is done no further trouble can arise. I leave the matter to be dealt with by the Court. Sir W. Buller : That is my case; Case closed. Sir W. Buller and Mr. J. M. Fraser, in reply to a question from the Court, said they were content to leave the case in the hands of the Court without remark. This was explained to the Maori conductors, and they agreed to dispense with addresses. The Court stated it would reserve judgment in this case until it had had an opportunity of going through all the evidence that had been given relating to the Horowhenua Block. Judgment reserved. The Court announced that the Court would ultimately be adjourned to Wellington. Notice would be sent to the parties when it was prepared to give judgment. There were five cases before the Court, and judgment would probably be given in all those cases at the same time. The application by the Minister for Public Works .for determination of value of No. 12 might be taken in Wellington, if not inconvenient to parties. There would be no necessity for the Maoris tp attend,

153

G.—2a

Mr. J. M. Fraser said he considered that the value placed upon the block by the valuers appointed by the Boyal Commission was a fair one, and if the Court adopted that valuation he would not attend the inquiry. His clients protested against the expenses of the Commission being made a charge against the land at all. The Court adjourned till the 31st instant.

Levin, Satueday, 31st July, 1897. Native Appellate Court. Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge; Atanatiu te Kairangi, Assessor. The Court adjourned till the 2nd August, and then from time to time till 14th April, 1898.

Sydney Steeet Schooleoom, Wellington, Thuesday, 14th April, 1898. Horowhenua Native Appellate Court opened after having met at the Government Buildings at 9 a.m. Present: A. Mackay, Esq., Judge ; W. J. Butler, Esq., Judge; A. H. Mackay, Clerk. Hoeowhenua No. 14: In re the application of Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui, that a Certificate of Title under " The Land Transfer Act," be ordered to be granted to applicant. The Court gave judgment in this case to the effect that the Native Land Court in 1886 vested subdivision 14 in Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui as sole beneficial owner untrammelled by any trust. (See Appendix X.)

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A. Hoeowhenua No. 11 Block. —Grouped List op Families eepeesented by Me. J. M. Fraser, except wheee otheewise shown. Ihaia Taueki—Tiripa Taueki, Hapeta Taueki, Haare Taueki, Biarona Taueki (dead); Makere te Bou —Oriwia te Mitiwaha, Hera Tupou, Hariata Ngamare, Tuhi Hori, Mohi Bakuraku, Kaiwhare Bakuraku, Wiremu te Pae, Tapita Himiona, Parahi Beihana; Noa te Whata (dead); Pirihira te Whata (dead) —Baniera te Whata, Heta te Whata (dead), Heta Noa (dead), Ngahuia Heta; Ani Kanara te Whata (wife of Heta te Whata); Tamati Maunu —Biwai te Amo, Mii Maunu, Hariata Tinotahi, Euka Hanuhanu, Hema Henare, Hanita Henare; Kerehi te Mitiwaha—Norenore te Kerehi, Warena te Kerehi, Heni Kuku ; Te Wirihana Tarewa; Bahira Wirihana—Henare Hanuhanu, Biria Peene, Harirota Taare, Bewi Wirihana, Hori Wirihana ; Hoani Puihi; Hiria Amorangi—Bipeka Winara, Kingi Puihi; Amorangi Bihara ; Nati Amorangi; Buta te Kiri—Wiremu Matakatea, Boka Hanita, Heta Matakatea, Miriama Matakatea, Baniera Matakatea; Hereora—Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki, Taare Matai*, Taare Hereora, Kiri Hopa*, Kahukore Hurinui*, Te Ahuru Paraotene*, Baraku Hunia*; Merehira te Marika = Tamati Maunu; Mereana Matao—Bawinia Matao, Hetariki Mataot; Bawinia Ihaia (father of Te Bahikurangi); Matenga Tinotahi; Ani Patene—Maata Hinekirangi; Bihari Tarakihi —Ema te Whango, Boreta Tawhai, Te Mananui Tawhai, Maata te Whango, Te Watarawi te Hau; Hopa Heremaia ; Te Herewini Bakautihia; Hori te Pa ; Hori Muruahi; Tahana Muruahi; Tamati Muruahi; Te Porana Muruahi; Waata Muruahi; Henare Mahuika (dead); Karaitiana Tarawahi; Kingi te Patu ; Motai Taueki; Matene Pakauwera; Peti Kohu—Hoone, Te Meihana Tupou ; Ani Kanara te Whata; Ngariki te Baorao; Winara te Baorao; Oriwia te Maiangi; Peene Tikara; Pire Tikaraf; Hana Bataf; Tiaki Tikara (dead); Petite Uku ; Pirihira te Hautapu; Pire Korana; Pehira Tuwharetoa; Te Bangimairehau ; Batima Potau; Emeri Ngawhakawa—Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu ; Te Hapimana Tohu; Te Oti te Hau; Tamati Taopuku; Te Waitere Kakiwa; Bewiri te Whiumairangi; Te Bangirurupuni. List op Peesons in Mb. J. M. Fraser's List op Names for whom no Interest is claimed in Hoeowhenua No. 11 Block. Ema te Whango, died before 1886 ; Emeri Ngawhakawa, no occupation; Heta te Whata, died before 1886, child in title ; Heta Matakatea and Te Herewini Bakautihia, died before 1886 ; Henare Mahuika, no occupation; Hamiora Potau, Inia Tamaraki, Matene Pakauwera, Matenga Tinotahi, Matiaha Mokai, Merehira te Marika, Mii Maunu, Pirihira te Whata, and Petite Uku, died before 1886; Pero Korana and Pehira Tuwharetoa, no occupation; Bewiri te Whiumairangi, Te Bangirurupuni, Biwai te Amo, Batima Potau, Boreta Tawhai, and Tamati Maunu, died before 1886; Tahana Muruahi, no occupation; Tamati Muruahi, died before 1886; Taitoko-ki-te-Uruotu, no occupation ; Te Hapimana Tohu, Tiaki Tikara, and Tamati Taopuku, died before 1886; Te Porana Muruahi, no occupation; Te Wirihana Tarewa, Te Waitere Kakiwa, and Hereora, died before 1886.

* Represented by Raraku. f Represented by Hamuera Karaitiana.

20— G. 2a.

G.—2a

154

APPENDIX B. Hoeowhenua No 11 Block.—List op Peesons objected to by Me. J. M. Feaser. Aperahama te Bangiwetea, Ani Kanara Tihore, Arihia Toitoi, Ani Marakaia, Akuira Takapo, Eparaima te Paki, Hetariki Takapo, Himiona Kowhai, Hetariki Matao, Hoani Nahona, Hiroti te Iki, Horopapera Atirangi, Hakihaki te Wunu, Hehe W 7 hakaka, Hutana Whakaka, Hoani Meihana, Heni Wairangi, Heni Haimona te Iki, Hira te Bangitakoru, Harirota (Moriori), Herariki Kawana Hunia, Harata te Koeti, Inia Tamaraki, Ihaka te Bangihouhia, Irihapeti Ihaia, Iritana, Kawana Hunia te Hakeke, Karena Taiawhio, Karaitiana te Kooro, Manihera te Bau, Maaka Ngarongaro, Marakaia Tawaroa, Mihiterina Kawana, Meri Nireaha, Mere Mionga, Mere Karena te Manaotawhaki, Meretene Whakaewa, Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, Matiria Karaitiana, Miriama Piripi, Ngahina Eruera, Ngahuia Tirei, Petera te Ha, Pirihira Nireaha, Pirihira te Bau, Paranihia Biwai, Parahi Beihana, Pane Korana, Te Paki, Peeti te Aweawe, Bangipo Hoani, Buahoata, Bawea Taraua, Bihipeti Tamaki, Buihi Wunu, Bia te Raikokiritia, Bakera Potaka, Topi Kotuku, Te Miha-o-te-rangi, Te Whatahoro, Turuki, Te Wirihana Paeroa, Te Warena te Hakeke, Wi Waaka, Wiki Pua.

APPENDIX C. Hoeowhenua No. 11 Block.—List op Peesons eepeesented by Sic Walter Bulleb. Keepa te Bangihiwinui, Wiki Meiha Keepa, Bora Korako, Ariki Hanara, Haruru-ki-te-rangi, Hori te Mawae, Merehira Tohu, Merehira Waipapa, Bora Tohu, Waata Tamatea.

APPENDIX D. Mr. A. McDonald's List op Peesons whose Bight is exhausted, and whom his Clients SAY HAVE NO CLAIM IN No. 11, THEY HAVING ALBEADY GOT SHABES IN HOEOWHENUA. (69) Te Porana Muruahi, (70) Hori Muruahi, (71) Henare Mahuika, (72) Hehe Whakaka, (73) Te Hutana Whakaka, (74) Hamiora Potau, (78) Batima Potau, (79) Matiaha Mokai, (80) Hori te Mawae, (81) Aperahama te Bangiwetea, (82) Te Miha-o-te-rangi, (83) Te Whatahoro, (86) Marakaia Tawaroa, (87) Karaitiana te Kooro, (94) Ani Kanara Tihore, (26) Wiremu Matakara, (31) Hetariki Takapo, (35) Tahana Muruahi, (36) Tamati Muruahi, (41) Te Manihera te Bau, (54) Hiroti te Iki, (57) Tamati Taopuku, (58) Topi Kotuku, (60) Horopapera Atirangi, (63) Hakihaki te Wunu, (64) Te Watarauihi, (123) Merehira Tohu, (124) Bora Tohu, (125) Merehira Waipapa, (130) Harirota, (136) Ngahuia Tirae, (137) Irihapeti Ihaia, (138) Matina Tamaiwhakakitea, (139) Wi Waaka, (140) Ani Marakaia, (141) Matina Karaitiana, (142) Miriama Piripi, (143) Harata te Koeti.

APPENDIX E. List op Ownees whose Claims in No. 11 ace not disputed by Me. A. McDonald as conductoe foe wleihana hunia and hlmiona kowhai, subject to investigation as to Quantum. (2) Kawana Hunia, (5) Te Bangirurupuni, (9) Te Wirihana Tarewa, (10) Inia Tamaraki, (11) Te Paki, (14) Te Kereihi te Mitiwaha, (15) Tamati Maunu, (16) Ihaka te Bangihouhia, (17) Matene Pakauwera, (18) Peene Tikara, (19) Himiona Taiweherua, (20) Pire Tikara, (22) Karaitiana Tarawahi, (23) Biwai te Amo, (27) Te Wirihana Paeroa, (33) Noa Tawhati, (34) Petera te Ha, (37) Hopa Heremaia, (39) Buka Hanuhanu (as one of the successors of Bangirurupuni), (40) Himiona Kowhai, (43) Akuira Takapo, (51) Te Hapimanu Tohu, (55) Tiaki Tikara, (59) Maaka Ngorongoro, (96) Maata Huikirangi, (97) Heni Wairangi, (98) Hariata Tinotahi, (101) Pirihira te Bau, (106) Iritana, (107) Wiki Hanita, (108) Merehira te Marika, (110) Bihipeti Tamaki, (111) Mereana Matao, (112) Bawinia Matao, (113) Unaiki Taueki, (127) Paranihia Biwai.

APPENDIX F. Begisteeed List op 1873, classified by Me. Alexandee McDonald, Conductob fob Wibihana Hunia and Himiona Kowhai, in the Native Appellate Covet at Levin, 3ed May, 1897. (1) Meiha Keepa (right exhausted), (3) Ihaia Taueki, (4) Bewiri te Whiumairangi, (6) Noa te Whata, (7) Motai Taueki, (8) Heta te Whata, (12) Hoani Puihi, (13) Baniera te Whata, (21) Hoone, (24) Ngariki te Baorao, (25) Winara te Baorao, (28) Te Warena te Hakeke, (29) Heta Matakatea, (30) Te Matenga Tinotahi, (32) Waata Muruahi, (38) Wiremu Matakatea, (42) Te Herewini Bakautihia, (44) Waata Tamatea, (45) Taare Matai, (46) Taare Hereora, (47) Kingi te Patu, (48) Bangipo Hoani, (49) Kingi Puihi, (50) Ariki Hanara, (52) Eparaima te Paki, (53) Hori te Pa, (56) Te Oti te Hau, (61) Karena Taiawhio, (62) Buahoata, (65) Bihari Tarakihi, (66) Haruru-ki-te-rangi, (67) Te Bangimairehau, (68) Henare Hanuhanu, (75) Hopa te Piki, (76) Te Mananui Tawhai, (77) Te Waitere Kakiwa, (84) Te Peeti te Aweawe, (85) Hoani Meihana, (88) Buta te Kiri, (89) Wiki Meiha Keepa, (90) Mihiterina Kawana, (91) Hereora, (92) Makere te Bou, (93) Anikanara te Whata, (95) Hiria Amorangi, (99) Oriwhia te Mitiwaha, (100) Hera Tupou, (102) Biarona Taueki, (103) Tiripa Taueki, (104) Turuki, (105) Pirihira te Whata, (109) Bora Korako, (114) Ema te Whango, (115) Boreta Tawhai, (116) Maata te Whango, (117) Meri Mionga, (118) Buihi Wunu, (119) Heni Haimona te Iki, (120) Mere Karena te Manaotawhaki, (121) Hira te Bangitakoru, (122) Arihia Toitoi, (126) Bia te Baikokiritia, (128) Peti Kohu, (129) Petite Uku, (131) Bakera Potaka, (132) Herariki Kawana Hunia, (133) Pirihira te Hau, (134) Meretene Whakaewa, (135) Emiri Ngawhakawa. Note. —These persons, except (1), have claims in No. 11, but they require to be strictly investigated as to quantum.

155

G.—2a

APPENDIX G. Hamuera Kaeaitiana's List op Peesons whom he claims to have Bights in No. 11. Bihipeti Nireaha, Paki te Hunga, Pire Tikara, Hetariki Takapo (kai riiwhi, Bawinia Matao and Hetariki), Petera te Ha (kai riiwhi, Bihipeti Nireaha), Akuira Takapo (kai riiwhi, Bihipeti Nireaha), Hetariki Matao, Hoani Nahona, Eparaima te Paki, Tiaki Tikara (ki riiwhi, Peene, Pire, and Hana), Maaka Ngorongoro (kai riiwhi, Bihipeti Nireaha), Mata Huikirangi, Mere Nireaha, Pirihira Nireaha, Hana Bata, Heni Wairangi, (kai riiwhi, Bihipeti Nireaha), Paranihia Biwai, Ngahina Eruera, Wirihana Wirihana (kai riiwhi no Wirihana Tarewa), Te Matenga Tinotahi (kai riiwhi, Mata Bahira, Ani Patene), Pirihira Arahura (kai riiwhi, Paranihia Biwai), Himiona Taiweherua (kai riiwhi, Paranihia Biwai), Mere Karena te Mana-a-tawhaki, Wiki Pua (kai riiwhi Hoani).

APPENDIX G No. 1. Hamueea Kaeaitiana's List op Peesons objected to by his Paety. (31) Hetariki Takapo, (35) Tahana Muruahi, (36) Tamati Muruahi, (41) Manihera te Bau, (57) Tamati Taopuku, (69) Porana Muruahi, (70) Hori Muruahi, (71) Henare Mahuika, (72) Hehe Whakaka, (73) Hutana Whakaka, (74) Hamiora Potau, (77) Waitere Kakiwa, (78) Batima Potau, (79) Matiaha Mokai, (80) Hori te Mawae, (81) Aperahama te Bangiwetea, (82) Miha-o-te-rangi, (83) Whatahoro, (84) Peeti te Aweawe, (85) Hoani Meihana, (86) Marakaia Tawaroa, (87) Karaitiana te Korou, (94) Ani Kanara Tihore, (130) Harirota, (137) Irihapeti Ihaia, (138) Matina Tamaiwhakakitea (Buta), (139) Wi Waaka, (140) Ani Marakaia, (141) Matiria Karaitiana, (142) Miriama Piripi, (143) Harata Koeti.

APPENDIX H. Henaee Apataei's List of Peesons whom he claims to have Bights in No. 11. (84) Peeti te Aweawe, (134) Meretene Whakaewa, (94) Ani Kanara Tihore. Note.—Henare te Apatari claims that his clients have rights in No. 11; he does not dispute the rights of any of the registered owners.

APPENDIX I. List of Clients of Bawiei Bota. Ihaia Taueki, Tiripa Taueki, Biarona Taueki, Hapeta Taueki, Haare Taueki, Hereora Taueki, Baraku Hunia, Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki, Matai Porotene, Taare Porotene, Te Ahuru Porotene, Kiri Hopa, Kahukore Hurinui.

APPENDIX I No. 1. List op Peesons whose Bights in No. 11 ace admitted by the Clients op Bawiri Bota. Ihaia Taueki, Tiripa Taueki, Biarona Taueki, Hapeta Taueki, Haare Taueki, Hereora Taueki, Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki, Matai Porotene, Taare Porotene, Te Ahuru Porotene, Kiri Hopa, Kahukore Hurinui, Te Baraku Hunia, Keepa te Bangihiwinui, Bewiri te Whiumairangi, Inia Tamaraki, Te Kerehi te Mitiwaha, Matene Pakauwera, Himiona Taiweherua, Karaitiana Tarawahi, Ngariki te Baorao, Winara te Baorao, Heta Matakatea, Hopa Heremaia, Wiremu Matakatea, Buka Hanuhanu, Himiona Kowhai, Te Manihera te Bau, Kingi te Patu, Mohi Bakuraku, Kaiwhare Bakuraku, Hoani Nahona, Hema Henare, Hanita Henare, Baniera Matakatea, Warena te Kerehi, Heta Noa, Bewi Wirihana, Wiremu te Pae, Ariki Hanara, Te Hapimana Tohu, Te Waatarauihi te Hau, Haruru-ki-te-rangi, Henare Hanuhanu, Te Waitere Kakiwa, Te Peeti te Aweawe, Buta te Kiri, Wiki Meiha Keepa, Makere te Bou, Ani Kanara te Whata, Ani Kanara Tihore, Maata Huikirangi, Bahira Wirihana, Tapita Himiona, Boka Hanita, Hariata Ngamare, Miriama Matakatea, Hariata Tinotahi, Oriwhia te Matiwaha, Bora Korako, Bia te Baikokiritia, Norenore te Kerehi, Ngahuia Heta, Parahi Beihana, Tuhi Hori, Heni Kuku, Harirota Taare, Hori Wirihana, Pehira Tuwharetoa, Biria Peene.

APPENDIX I No. 2. Supplementary List of Peesons eepeesented by Bawiei Bota. Meretene Whakaewa, Merehira Tohu, Pirihira te Bau, Pirihira te Hautapu, Paranihia Biwai, Bora Tohu, Waata Tamatea, Wiki Hanita.

APPENDIX I No. 3. List op Peesons objected to by Bawiei Bota on behalf of his Clients. Akuira Takapo, Amorangi Bihara, Aperahama te Bangiwetea, Arihia Toitoi, Ani Marakaia, Ani Patene, Eparaima Paki, Ema te Whango, Emiri Ngawhakawa, Iritana, Irihapeti Ihaia, Oriwia Maiangi, Hoani Puihi, Hoone, Hetariki Takapo, Hetarine Matao, Hori te Pa, Hiroti te Iki, Horopapera Atirangi, Hakihaki te Wunu, Henare Mahuika, Hehe Whakaka, Hamiora Potau, Hopa te Piki, Hori te Mawae, Hoani Meihana, Hiria Amorangi, Hana Bata, Heni Wairangi, Heni Haimona te Iki, Hira te Bangitakoru, Harirota (Moriori), Herariki Kawana Hunia, Harata te Koeti, Kawana Hunia te Hakeke, Kingi Puihi, Karena Taiawhio, Karaitiana te Korou, Maaka Ngarongaro, Marakaia Tawaroa, Mihiterina Kawana, Meri Nireaha, Mereana Matao, Maata te Whango, Mere Mionga, Mere Karena te Manaotawhaki, Merehira Waipapa, Matina Tamaiwhakakitea (Ruta),

G.—2a

156

Matina Karaitiana, Miriama Piripi, Manihera te Rau, Noa te Whata, Nati Amorangi, Ngahuia Eruera, Ngahuia Tirae, Peene Tikara, Pero Tikara, Petera te Ha, Pirihira te Whata, Pane Korana, Pere Korana, Baniera te Whata, Biwai te Amo, Bangipo Hoani, Buahoata, Bihari Tarakihi, Batima Potau, Bawinia Ihaia, Bipeka Winara, Bawea Taraua, Bihipeti Tamaki, Bawinia Matao, Boreta Tawhai, Buihi Wunu, Bakera Potaka, Te Bangirurupuni, Te Paki, Tamati Maunu, Te Wirihana Paeroa, Te Warena te Hakeke, Te Matenga Tinotahi, Tahana Muruahi, Tamati Muruahi, Taitoko-ki-te-uruotu, Tiaki Tikara, Te Oti te Hau, Tamati Taopuku, Toopi Kotuku, Te Bangimairehau, Te Porana Muruahi, Te Mananui Tawhai, Te Miha-o-te-rangi, Te Whatahoro, Turuki, Te Meihana Tupou, Waata Muruahi, Wi Waaka, Hori Muruahi, Hutana Whakaka, Heta Noa, Matiaha Mokai, Pirihira Nireaha.

APPENDIX J. Hoeowhenua No. 11 Block.—List op Names eepeesented by Me. Knocks. Arihia Toitoi, Hiroti te Iki, Hakihaki te Wunu, Heni Haimona te Iki, Hira te Bangitakoru, Manihera te Bau, Mere Mionga, Pirihira te Bau, Buihi Wunu.

APPENDIX K. Hoeowhenua No. 14. In the matter of the application by Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui for an order under "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," declaring him to be the beneficial owner of Subdivision 14 of the Horowhenua Block. The following judgment was delivered at a sitting of the Horowhenua Native Appellate Court held at Wellington on Thursday, the 14th April, 1898 :— In the year 1886 the Native Land Court sat at Palmerston North, and partitioned the whole of the Horowhenua Block under "The Native Land Act, 1880," and " The Native Land Division Act, 1882," when each person entitled under the certificate of title issued under the 17th section of "The Native Land Act, 1867," in the order of the Court dated the 10th April, 1873, was allotted a share. In carrying out the subdivision, Section 14 was allotted to Keepa te Bangihiwinui, and a question has arisen whether this section was awarded to him beneficially or merely as a trustee to hold the land for a special purpose. To enable an inquiry to be held an Act was passed during the session of 1896, entitled " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," which revives and reenacts "The Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886," and all the amendments thereof, excepting section 18 of "The Native Land Court Act Amendment Act, 1889." Under section 2 of "The Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886," the Court is authorised, on the application of any Natives claiming to be beneficially interested in any land within the scope of the Act, to inquire into the nature of the title to such land, and into the existence of any intended trust affecting the title thereto, and according to the result of such inquiry the Court may declare that no such trust exists, or, if it finds that any such trust does or was intended to exist, then it may declare who are the persons beneficially entitled. Notwithstanding that the particulars in connection with the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block have been so frequently narrated, it will be necessary for the purpose of this case to give a brief account of the proceedings; and also, for the purpose of showing the principal reasons and considerations on which the judgment is founded, to reproduce a good deal of the evidence given before the Boyal Commission and the Native Appellate Court to a considerable length. The Native Land Court sat at Palmerston North on the 25th day of November, 1886, in pursuance of a notification duly published in the New Zealand Gazette and the Kahiti, to deal with the application of Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui to subdivide the Horowhenua Block amongst the 143 registered owners. The Court elected to carry out the proceedings under the provisions of " The Native Land Court Act, 1880," and at the first day's sittings made three subdivisions in the name of Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui, for the following purposes, namely : No. 1, containing 76 acres, for the part of the Wellington and Manawatu Bailway-line which crosses the block ; No. 2, containing 4,000 acres, to be ultimately sold to the Government; No. 3, containing 1,200 acres, for the descendants of Te Whatanui, in fulfilment of an agreement entered into in 1874 between Sir Donald McLean and Meiha Keepa, in settlement of tribal quarrels between the Muaupoko and certain members of the Ngatiraukawa Tribe. After recording the aforesaid parcels, the Court adjourned further proceedings in the Horowhenua case until 10 a.m. on Saturday, 27th November. On re-opening the Court on the 27th November the Horowhenua case was further adjourned until Wednesday, the Ist December. On opening on the Ist December the Court continued the partition of the Horowhenua Block with a new Assessor, in consequence of the Assessor who sat on the first day having left, and called over for the purpose of confirming them the three orders made on the 25th November, the presiding Judge being under the impression, as the application was for a partition of the whole block, that it was necessary to commence de novo to insure the validity of the proceedings. Two out of the three orders made on the 25th November were confirmed at the opening of the Court on the Ist December, but the one for the parcel of 1,200 acres, first set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui, was not then dealt with, in consequence of a fresh arrangement entered into during the interval. This arrangement was given effect to later on in the day by setting apart another parcel of land containing 1,200 acres near the Horowhenua Lake, in pursuance with the terms of an agreement made between Sir Donald McLean and Meiha Keepa in 1874 that it should be placed in that locality, a circumstance that was not known to the Court on the 25th November, in consequence of the agreement not then being accessible. The parcel referred to near the Horowhenua Lake was numbered IX., and was ordered by the Court during the afternoon of the Ist December

157

G.—2

in the name of Keepa te Bangihiwinui for the decendants of Te Whatanui, in fulfilment of the arrangement previously referred to. At this stage of the proceedings two parcels of 1,200 acres each had been allotted for the descendants of Te Whatanui—one on the southern boundary, adjacent to Ohau, set apart on the 25th November and numbered 3, and the other near the Horowhenua Lake, set apart on the Ist December and numbered 9. The reason for setting apart the first parcel near Ohau was because Meiha Keepa and the Muaupoko were desirious of locating the descendants of Te Whatanui alongside the Ngatiraukawa land, with a view to prevent tribal disturbances taking place with the Muaupoko. The people concerned, however, declined to accept the land in that locality, as, independent of it being of inferior character, it removed them from the part of the block where Te Whatanui and his people had always resided for a long period of years ; and while the discussion was taking place between them and Meiha Keepa about shifting the 1,200 acres elsewhere the agreement of 1874 came to hand which fixed the position near the Horowhenua Lake, and this led to the requisite area being subsequently placed in the locality described in the said agreement, leaving the other parcel of 1,200 acres first selected adjacent to the southern boundary to be afterwards disposed of. The Court, after setting apart the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui near Lake Horowhenua, proceeded to dispose of the remainder of the unallotted part of the block, and finally apportioned all the area, the 1,200 acres at Ohau being ultimately allotted to Meiha Keepa on the 3rd December as No. 14 —it is alleged, as an alternative section for the descendants of Te Whatanui. During the hearing of the case a number of questions of fact and of law having been raised, the Court decided to state a case for the Supreme Court. Twenty separate questions on the points raised were prepared and submitted for the decision of the Supreme Court, some of which were considered immaterial and not subjects for inquiry by the Appellate Court. The questions which were answered are as follows, viz. : (a.) That it is not material to the present case whether the 56th section of " The Native Land Court Act, 1880," does require that all the registered owners or their legal representatives should have assented to the voluntary arrangement, or whether it was or was not imperative that the requirements of that section should have been complied with prior to giving effect to such voluntary arrangement under which the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block was made by the Native Land Court in 1886. (b.) That the land, i.e., No. 14, may be deemed to have effectively vested in Major Kemp as beneficial owner, notwithstanding the voluntary arrangement was not carried out in strict conformity with the requirements of section 56 of the Act referred to; or the fact that Major Kemp was in the position of a trustee under the title of 1873, if the Native Appellate Court is satisfied of the intent of the Native Land Court in making the order, (c.) That the subject for inquiry by the Native Appellate Court is not whether the Native Land Court, in creating Division 14, conducted the proceedings with due attention to the law prescribing the preliminaries to or regulating the proceedings in the subdivision, (d.) That though Judge Wilson's evidence ought not to be disregarded, but on the contrary ought to be accepted as of great weight, it is not to be treated as conclusive, but weighed with other evidence. (c.) That where the evidence is conflicting, and depends entirely on oral testimony, it is open to the Appellate Court to receive and consider evidence in contravention of Judge Wilson's distinct recollection with regard to any proceedings before him at the Court of 1886. (/.) That the Native Appellate Court, in exercising jurisdiction under "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," has no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the proceedings taken by the Native Land Court in 1886 in respect of the making and the issue of the orders in freehold tenure, but that the orders are to be taken as valid, but not conclusive that the person named in the order was absolute or sole beneficial owner, (g.) That it is not a matter for decision by the Native Appellate Court whether it was validly agreed to at or before the Subdivisional Court of 1886 by the persons whose consent was necessary that Major Kemp should be the sole owner of the piece of land now Horowhenua No. 14, but whether the Native Land Court proceeded upon a determination that it had been so agreed, (h.) That the Native Appellate Court, in coming to such a decision, is not entitled to disregard any of the proceedings in the Court of 1886, or any matter or things in pursuance thereof, (i.) That the Court, in exercising jurisdiction under section 4 of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," cannot limit the interest or wholly omit from an order made any person unless it finds such person to have been a trustee, and while a trustee to have acted to the prejudice of the interests of the other owners, or for any other sufficient reason. Prior to answering the questions, judgments were delivered by his Honour the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denniston. The judgment of his Honour the Chief Justice, briefly stated, was as follows : Before answering in detail the questions submitted by the Native Appellate Court, it is, I think, desirable that the opinion I have formed upon the governing questions in the case should be stated. The most important is, What was the jurisdiction intended to be conferred on the Appellate Court by the 4th section of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," with regard to certain portions of land therein specified, and particularly a portion of land therein spoken as Division 14 ? Now, on the one hand it is contended that "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," having declared the Land Transfer certificate of No. 14 null and void, re-enacted " The Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886," to enable the Native Appellate Court to ascertain whether the Court of 1886 or the registered owners intended that Division 14 should be taken by Kemp subject to a trust, or as sole beneficial owner. On the other hand, it was contended that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court was not so limited as to prevent the said Court from fully inquiring into all the merits or demerits of the question; and, amongst other things, that the Court was authorised to inquire whether the certificate under the 17th section of " The Native Land Act, 1867," was effectively set aside; and

G.—2a

158

it was further contended that if in the proceedings the Court, in respect of No. 14, had not followed the directions of the Native Land Acts, that the so-called trust arising out of the certificate under section 17 remained as to Division 14 unaffected by the subdivision made by the Court of 1886. His Honour decided that the last contention was not admissible, and that the first contention is the one which is supported by the Horowhenua Block Act. It was further contended by the opponents of Major Kemp that section 15 of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," is an independent section, and that it clothed the Native Appellate Court with all the powers of " The Native Land Court Act, 1894," and the amending Act of 1895, for the purpose of revising, correcting, or nullifying any existing title in respect of section 14. His Honour held that these powers were merely conferred for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act for ascertaining whether or not a trust was intended to be imposed on Section 14, and, if so, to determine who were the beneficial owners. As regards the other contentions raised, it was held that these were not matters that the Native Appellate Court was required to inquire into. His Honour Mr. Justice Denniston commenced by remarking that he agreed with the judgment of his Honour the Chief Justice, and, after referring to the number of questions submitted by the Native Appellate Court, and the manner in which these questions were framed, proceeded to state his decision as to the points raised. The contention that " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," contains a legislative enactment that Section 14 of the Horowhenua Block was in fact trust property is not concurred in. The Act, in its preamble, recites the fact that a Commission had sat o inquire into the Horowhenua Block, and that it is expedient to, as far as practicable, to give effect to the recommendation of such Commission, but it does not profess to accept the findings of the Commission, and it neither states such findings or recommendations, nor incorporates them directly or by reference. Section 4, the one relied on in support of the contention, is held to be an enabling one. It is furthermore pointed out, in connection with the contention, that it would require the plainest and most explicit words to compel a Court to conclude that the Legislature had not only cancelled the Land Transfer certificate which barred the way to the inquiry, but had predetermined, without any judicial investigation, one of the principal questions in controversy between the parties. An Act which takes away from an individual a status which he has acquired in due course of law, and which retrospectively subjects his property to special disabilities and to investigation under special conditions, and by a new tribunal, is not to be loosely construed. Legal rights, if destroyed, must be destroyed by express words, and not by a strained and doubtful inference. It is held that section 4 of the Act is the only directly empowering section, unless sections 14 and 15, as contended, be held to confer further special powers; but it is thought that these sections cannot be held to do more than giving to the Court the powers and jurisdiction of the Acts therein mentioned, so far as necessary, in the words of section 15, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. The words " special powers " contained in section 15 are, it is thought, satisfied by the provisions of section 4, which, besides re-enacting the Equitable Owners Act, provides specifically for specially dealing with the interest of any person found to be a trustee. After reviewing the provisions of "The Equitable Owners Act, 1886," his Honour points out that the contention made in the present case, and entertained, apparently, by the Native Appellate Court, that it was open to examine into the constitution of the Native Land Court which made the subdivision of 1886, whether it complied with certain preliminary particulars as to cancellation of certificates, and generally to ascertain whether it had jurisdiction to make the order of subdivision, is untenable, as the more reasonable construction of the statute is that it was intended to be confined, in the first instance, to ascertaining the nature of the title to the property in which the applicant claimed to be beneficially interested—that is, to finding out who had at the time of the investigation been declared the owner of the land under the proceedings of a competent tribunal, and that it was not competent for the Court to challenge the procedure of such tribunal, and in effect set aside an existing title. Having ascertained this, it has then to determine whether, at the time such title was granted, the person or persons who on its face are absolute owners were really intended to hold the land in trust for other persons. With all deference to his Honour's dicta in the matter, it is pointed out that it was not a contention of the Native Appellate Court that it had such power under " The Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886," but it was urged by counsel for the objectors that sections 14 and 15 of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," conferred special powers on the Court to perform these functions; but this contention has been decided in the negative by his Honour the Chief Justice. It was owing to the several contentions raised by counsel during the hearing of the case which involved questions of law of more or less importance, and also with a view to have these questions authoritatively disposed of before giving its decision, which led the Native Appellate Court to state a case for the Supreme Court. These questions have now been answered, and the scope of the proceedings practically narrowed down to the provisions of section 2 of "The Equitable Owners Act, 1886," to ascertain whether there was any, and, if so, what, intended trust; and if a trust, then for whom. But before dealing with that phase of the question it seems advisable to briefly consider the principles of law which create a trust. Trusts arising by operation of law are divided into three classes — (a) Constructive, (6) resulting, and (c) implied. (1.) A constructive trust is properly a trust declared by a person indirectly, and construed by the Court in favour of the intention. If property be given to a person as trustee only, if no trust be declared, or the trust declared or purporting to be declared should fail, then there is a resulting trust for the donor, or those claiming under him, and the donee can claim nothing beneficially, nothing being given to him but as trustee. (2.) A resulting trust is one that arises from the operation or construction of equity, and in pursuance of the rule that trusts result to the person from whom the consideration moves, of which the following are instances : (a.) A conveyance to a man without consideration raises a resulting

G.—2a,

159

trust for the original owner, (b.) When the trusts created cannot take effect, a trust will result to the original owner or his heir. (3.) An implied trust arises generally from an equitable construction put upon the acts, conduct, or situation of the parties. Implied trusts have been distributed into two classes —(1) Those depending upon the presumed interest of the parties ; as, where property is delivered by one to another to be handed over to a third person, the receiver holds it upon an implied trust in favour of such third person : (2) those not depending upon such intention, but arising by operation of law, in cases of fraud or notice of an adverse equity. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the crucial question for this Court to determine is not whether there was a constructive, a resulting, or an implied trust created through the happening of certain circumstances, or the non-performance of certain duties in connection with the proceedings of the Subdivisional Court of 1886, but whether there was a trust intended in respect of Section 14 at the subdivisional proceedings either by the Court or by the registered owners; and in determining this question the Court has to consider, inter alia, the purport of the several answers given to the questions submitted by it to the Supreme Court. The principal answers to be considered in connection with the determination of the question as to whether a trust was intended in regard to No. 14 are the answers given to questions Nos. 2, 14, and 16. The answer to No. 2 is: "That the land (i.e., No. 14) may be deemed to have effectively vested in Kemp as beneficial owner, notwithstanding the matters mentioned in this question, if the Native Appellate Court is satisfied of the intent of the Native Land Court in making the order." The answer to No. 14 is : " That though Judge Wilson's evidence ought not to be disregarded, but on the contrary ought to be accepted as of great weight, it is not be treated as conclusive, but weighed with other evidence." The answer to No. 16 is: " That the subject for decision is not whether it was validly agreed, but whether the Native Land Court proceeded upon a determination that it had been so agreed." As some confusion appears to exist about the allocation of the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui, through the fact that two parcels were set apart for that purpose on different dates, and as this has evidently given rise in a great measure to the question of trust raised in respect of No. 14, it will be as well to give a brief retrospect of the circumstances which have apparently caused the confusion, and created the theory of the trust. On the 25th November, 1886, the Court, inter alia, set apart 1,200 acres adjacent to the southern boundary of the Horowhenua Block, and vested the land in the name of Keepa te Bangihiwinui, on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui. On the Ist of the following month, in consequence of the descendants of Te Whatanui objecting to the 1,200 acres appropriated on their behalf on the 25th November, the Court set apart another parcel of 1,200 acres near the Horowhenua Lake, and on the 3rd December allotted the 1,200 acres first set apart to Keepa te Bangihiwinui; and it is in respect of the second appropriation that the theory of trust has been raised by the opponents of Major Kemp, the contention being that, although the section was placed in his name, it was intended as an alternative choice for the descendants of Te Whatanui, as it was not fully known while the Court was sitting whether they had definitely consented to accept the other section near the lake. The theory as to No. 3 subdivision made adjacent to the southern boundary on the 25th November afterwards becoming No. 9 on the Ist December the Court is fully convinced is a confused idea of the proceedings, which have arisen to a certain extent through the inexplicit manner in which the minutes of the Court are worded, owing to the fact that the Clerk who entered the particulars was new to the work, besides being unaware of what had been done on the 25th November, and consequently could not have clearly comprehended what was then taking place, otherwise such a palpable inaccuracy would not have been placed on record— i.e., that a parcel of land situated in a locality at a considerable distance from Lake Horowhenua, where No. 3 is located, which was merely referred to casually in the morning of the Ist December as having been before the Court on the 25th November, was the same as the parcel of land numbered 9, adjacent to the lake, that was finally set apart during the afternoon of the same day for the descendants of Te Whatanui in fulfilment of the terms of the agreement of 1874. The theory that No. 3 and No. 9 were identical is further shown to be incorrect by a tracing, which only came before the Native Appellate Court at the end of the inquiry, on which it is clearly shown that the original No. 9 was in quite a different part of the block, and that the No. 9 ultimately placed near the Horowhenua Lake on the Ist December was a fresh section carved out of the part of the Horowhenua Block to the westward of the railway-line, and really formed part of No. 11, while Section No. 3, set apart on the 25th November, was located adjacent to the southern boundary and to the eastward of the railway-line, and was first numbered 2, then 3, and finally 14, the change in numbers being caused by the alterations which took place in the order of dealing with the sections. For instance, on the 25th November the number was changed from 2 to 3 in consequence of an interruption in the proceedings, through the agreement of 1874 not being available. On the Ist December No. 3 was appropriated for another section of larger area, to wit, 11,130 acres set apart in favour of Ihaia Taueki and 105 others, because of an arrangement having taken place between the 25th of November and the Ist December to locate the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui near the Horowhenua Lake, in place of the 1,200 acres allotted for that purpose on the 25th instant; and, owing to ihatters not being sufficiently matured to admit of the location near the lake being immediately dealt with, the matter was postponed till the afternoon; and, in the meantime, five other subdivisions were disposed of, which utilised the intervening numbers, and 9 being the next in sequence was appropriated for the section of 1,200 acres placed near the Horowhenua Lake for the descendants of Te Whatanui, practically leaving the 1,200 acres first set apart for them at Ohau on the 25th November without a number, and without a purpose ; but in the meantime other parcels were appropriated and numbered, leaving the parcel numbered 3 on the 25th November, but afterwards denuded of that number, to be ultimately designated No. 14.

G.—2a

160

Now, as to the theory of the trust imposed on No. 14, it has been shown that No. 9 was finally set apart in Kemp's name on the afternoon of the Ist December, adjacent to the Horowhenua Lake, for the descendants of Te Whatanui, in terms of the agreement of 1874. This, therefore, disposed of their claim, as there was only one area of 1,200 acres to be set apart for that purpose. A doubt, however, seems to exist in connection with the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block, whether the section of 1,200 acres first set apart as No. 3 on the 25th November, and afterwards numbered 14 on the 3rd December, did not become converted by some indescribable process into an alternative section for the descendants of Te Whatanui, because it had been first set apart for that purpose ; but to uphold that view practically means that all the subsequent proceedings must be ignored, and conclusive testimony furnished that the descendants of Te Whatanui, who were only entitled to one section of 1,200 acres, had not definitely accepted the parcel numbered 9, containing that area, near the Horowhenua Lake, on the Ist December, in fulfilment of the agreement of 1874. In opposition to the theory that No. 14 was set apart as an alternative section for the descendants of Te Whatanui, there is the evidence of Neville Nicholson, one of the collateral descendants of Te Whatanui, who took an active part in getting the 1,200 acres located near Lake Horowhenua, that the section numbered 3, near Ohau, and afterwards numbered 14, was rejected by him on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui. In further proof that No. 9 was accepted by the descendants of Te Whatanui, a list of names of the persons to whom this section should be allotted was furnished to Mr. Lewis, the Under-Secretary, Native Department, on the 13th December, 1886, in compliance with a suggestion made by him at the time the matter was under discussion during the sitting of the Court as to the ultimate location of the 1,200 acres. The letter referred to was to the following effect: "To Mr. Lewis.—Friend, we send you herewith our list of names for the 1,200 acres which you and Te Keepa allotted to us." This letter clearly refers to No. 9, as this was the only section that Mr. Lewis was instrumental in getting set apart, as, beyond giving evidence on the 25th November, when No. 3 was before the Court, as to the existence of the agreement of 1874, he does not appear to have taken any action in respect of the location of the land. In consequence of no action taking place in respect of their first letter, a second one was sent to Mr. Lewis on the Bth August, 1887, in the following terms : " This is a question to you from us as to the list of names which we sent to you—that is, the list of our names for the 1,300 acres of land which was completed by Major Kemp at the sitting of the Court at Palmerston North, in accordance with the deed made by him in the presence of Sir D. McLean. You were at that sitting of the Court at Palmerston, and settled our discussion with Major Kemp as to the position of the 1,300 acres. That contention was settled by you, and you told us to send a list of our names to you at Wellington. That list was sent immediately after the sitting of the Court, but you have not sent any word in reply to us. That is why we now ask you to tell us whether that matter has been completed or not, so that our minds may be relieved." The delay in attending to the matter was apparently caused through letters written by Bu Beweti and others to the Native Department, asking that the list of names forwarded to the Government be not accepted, as it had been prepared by the descendants of Te Hitau, the sister of Te Whatanui. In consequence of the difference of opinion which existed amongst the persons who claimed the 1,200 acres set apart by the Court for the descendants of Te Whatanui, Mr. Lewis, under date the 24th March, 1887, referred the matter to Judge Wilson, who replied in the following terms : " The position is this. At the partition of Horowhenua Major Kemp was placed by the Court in a position to carry out his agreement with Sir D. McLean. This was done at the unanimous request of the owners of the block. Major Kemp can now convey to the descendants of Te Whatanui (at the expense of the latter). It seems to me that in would be a simple and proper course for Government to refer the question as to who the Natives are to whom Major Kemp should convey under his agreement with Sir D. McLean to the Native Land Court, under the 51st section of ' The Native Land Court Act, 1886.' " As no reference to the number of the section set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui is contained in the foregoing memorandum, it is necessary to read the subjoined particulars furnished by Judge Wilson to the Begistrar of the Native Land Court in October, 1887, in consequence of a mistake made by the surveyors in deviating from the boundaries fixed by the Court when laying off No. 9, to fully understand the meaning of the statement that "Kemp was placed by the Court in a position to carry out his agreement with SirD. McLean :" " [Copy of memorandum of instructions for survey of No. 9, dated Ist December, 1886.] Horowhenua Sub. No. 9 : 1,200 acres to be awarded in the name of Te Keepa Bangihiwinui. This land to be taken south of Hokio Stream, and adjoining the 100 acres known as Baumatangi, on the south and west sides of the same." After describing the remaining boundaries, the memorandum concludes as follows : " This is the description of the 1,200 acres awarded by the Court to enable Major Kemp to fulfil an agreement with the Government.—J. A. Wilson, 1/10/87." The course recommended in Judge Wilson's memorandum in reply to Mr. Lewis was approved by the Native Minister, and Meiha Keepa was informed to. that effect on the 21st April, 1887. Further delay was, however, caused by the dissension which prevailed amongst the descendants of Te W 7 hatanui as to the division of the land, but not as to its location, and it was not until the 19th August, 1890, that the question was referred to the Native Land Court by Order in Council to determine who were entitled to No. 9, Horowhenua, amongst the persons claiming as decendants of Te Whatanui. Touching the theory of the counter-claimants, that there was an understanding on the 3rd December that an order awarding No. 14 to Meiha Keepa was intended not to constitute him an absolute owner, but trustee for the descendants of Te Whatanui, in support of this doctrine it

161

a.— 2a

is necessary to prove that, notwithstanding No. 9 had been allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, that it was intended that the order of the 3rd December should award No. 14 for the same purpose. In connection with this theory the question arises: Was it probable, under the circumstances, that two sections of land of 1,200 acres should be specially allocated for the same purpose, inasmuch as the descendants of Te Whatanui were only entitled to one parcel of that area ? If, therefore, No. 9 was definitely allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, it follows as a matter of fact that it could not have been intended to allot No. 14 for the same purpose on the 3rd December, as an alternative section. A good deal of the confusion that exists about the matter has been caused by the peculiar circumstances connected with the setting-apart of the two sections. Both of the sections are of the same area, and both were set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The dual action of the Court through the change of the Assessor was another cause of confusion. On the 25th November the Court set apart 1,200 acres at Ohau and numbered it 3, and on the Ist December it set apart 1,200 acres near Lake Horowhenua and numbered it 9. The descendants of Te Whatanui, although they objected to the section at Ohau, were evidently satisfied with the location of the last-named parcel, and on that parcel being appropriated on their behalf the parcel numbered 3, set apart for the same purpose on the 25th November, became vacated, and remained unappropriated until it was utilised on the 3rd December by the Court awarding it to Meiha Keepa as No. 14. It will have also to be borne in mind in connection with the setting-apart of No. 14 on the 3rd December that the Court had treated the whole of the procedure of 25th November as nugatory, owing to the presiding Judge being of opinion that it was advisable, in consequence of the change of Assessors, to commence de novo by confirming on the Ist December the three orders made on the 25th November; but only two of these were so confirmed, the order for the 1,200 acres at Ohau, then numbered 3, being postponed owing to other arrangements having been made for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The action of the Court on the Ist December in nullifying its proceedings in regard to the three orders made by it on the 25th November rendered everything that had been done on that date null and void, consequently the parcel then numbered 3 became a vacant section, and available for appropriation for any other purpose. As regards the question raised as to the competency of the Court to render nugatory the proceedings of the 25th November, the Supreme Court decided, in answer to a question submitted to it by the Native Appellate Court, that the competence of the Court on the occasion referred to is not a matter for inquiry. It was not disputed either -before the Commission or the Native Appellate Court that the application for each subdivision was prefaced by a statement in Court of the purpose for which it was allotted. If the recipient was to be absolute owner, that was stated in Court; if, on the other hand, he was to be trustee for some tribal purpose, that purpose was announced, although the word "trustee" was not always used. Judge Wilson states that he challenged all the applications which were before the Court, but especially the one for Section 14 in favour of Kemp. The theory that it was requisite that some person should settle the location of the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui at the Court of 1886 is not a tenable one, for the reason that this was a matter which already had been settled by the agreement of 1874, which stipulated that it should be near the Horowhenua Lake ; but, irrespective of that, Mr. Lewis, the Under-Secretary, Major Kemp, and Neville Nicholson, one of the persons concerned, did definitely settle the question, and this is corroborated by the letters written by the Natives to Mr. Lewis, already referred to. The statement, on which a good deal of stress has been laid, that only some of the descendants of Te Whatanui consented to accept No 9, is beside the question, as it was immaterial whether they did or did not consent, as they were not entitled to be considered, except possibly as a matter of courtesy. With further reference to the assertion that it was intended that No. 14 should be held by Major Kemp as a trustee, it it advisable to review the proceedings of the Court of 1886 to ascertain on what grounds this contention is based. The minutes of the Court of that date are too meagre to afford much information on the subject, consequently it is necessary to have recourse to statements made before the several tribunals before which investigations in connection with the Horowhenua Block have been made at a subsequent date, to enable a conclusion to be arrived at. The evidence in the Courts of 1890 and 1891 is also very limited in respect of No. 14, and it is not until the Commission sat in 1896 that direct evidence is obtainable. A great deal, however, of the evidence taken before the Commission must be accepted with considerable caution, as a number of Natives who gave evidence-before it against Kemp's sole right to No. 14 contradicted and withdrew their former statements when before the Native Appellate Court in 1897. Among the witnesses who gave evidence before the Boyal Commission relative to Section 14 whose credibility is not tainted with interest are Judge Wilson, Mr. Alexander McDonald, Mr. Donald Fraser, and Mr. Hector McDonald. The evidence of all the Native witnesses, although admissible, is not disinterested, consequently the same weight cannot be attached to it as to that of a person who has nothing to gain by either wilfully misstating the matter or suppressing the truth. According to Judge Wilson's testimony, No. 14 was allotted to Meiha Keepa for himself absolutely. The first reference made to No. 14 being allotted to Kemp for himself is in evidence given by Judge Wilson before the Supreme Court on the 12th October, 1894, under cross-examina tion by Mr. Barnicoat: " What Keepa got himself was No. 14, 1,200 acres." Before the Boyal Commission Judge Wilson's evidence was entirely in favour of Kemp, and, on being cautioned by the Chairman to charge his memory thoroughly on that point, he stated positively that when he allotted No. 14 to Kemp that it was intended to be held by him absolutely. He also made the same statement in reply to Sir Walter Buller, Mr. A. McDonald, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. A. L. D. Fraser. In the Native Appellate Court he gave equally positive evidence that No. 14 was allotted to Kemp absolutely,

21— G. 2a,

162

G.—2a

As regards Mr. McDonald's testimony, he gave evidence in the Supreme Court in 1894 relative to the setting-apart of the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and as they were not satisfied with the locality of the first section another section was set apart near Lake Horowhenua, and then arose a discussion as to who of the Ngatiraukawa were to be included. No mention was made by the witness as to what became of the first 1,200 acres, but in the Native Land Court in 1891 he referred to the matter in the following terms: "There was great discussion about a block of 1,200 acres in fulfilment of an agreement between Kemp and Sir D. McLean on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui. Ngatiraukawa would not accept the 1,200 acres proposed to be given, and another 1,200 acres was given them, and Kemp kept the first 1,200 acres." In reply to the following question put by the Court, "Do you know what piece was cut off for Whatanui?" Mr. McDonald stated, "That piece marked 14 on the plan crossing the railway: this they refused. After further negotiation between Mr. Lewis and Kemp they agreed to take that marked No. 9, and the order was made to Major Kemp for both." Before the Commission Mr. McDonald stated that his recollection was that No. 14 was kept open till the last, and was the last disposed of by the Court, in the hope that somebody would say, " We will take No. 9 in satisfaction of the agreement," and that then some disposition could be made of No. 14. In reply to Sir Walter Buller, witness stated that he understood that the two allotments (viz., No. 9 and No. 14) were both vested in Kemp as alternative blocks for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and»if they accepted No. 9, that Kemp was under a moral obligation only to return the other 1,200 acres to the tribe. Witness stated that he had frequently met Kemp since the sitting of the Court in 1886, but had not urged on him the duty of transferring the 1,200 acres at Papaitonga to the tribe, because he was under the impression that the descendants of Te Whatanui had not selected No. 9. Somewhat similar evidence was also given by Mr. McDonald before the Native Appellate Court. The evidence, as usual, is very conflicting, and the more remote the period becomes from the time the proceedings were held in 1886 the more positive the statements become in support of the different theories set up. Evidence that was given with diffidence at an earlier period became, as time advanced, through being oft repeated, a matter of certainty. It often happens that from an inaptitude to distinguish, persons not infrequently speak erroneously, though without intention to mislead. It is noticeable, also, that when witnesses have once sworn to any particular matter, though on slight and insufficient grounds or with considerable hesitation in the first place, they are apt on subsequent examination to lose all distrust about the matter, and speak with a certainty to which they did not pretend at the time when the circumstances were more recent and their power of recollection must therefore have been greater. Many persons are apt to form a belief with regard to the existence of matters inquired into on insufficient or unsure foundations, and often become so convinced of the truth of such things, especially after once stating them or giving evidence of them, that it not unfrequently happens that witnesses, perfectly honest in intention, are more likely to mislead than others whose evidence is obviously open to the suspicion of fraud. This appears to have happened in regard to the evidence given in this case, and there is little doubt that the statement made by Mr. A. McDonald before the Supreme Court in 1894, that he found great difficulty in disentangling what took place in his mind and what has taken place since, or what he had heard since, aptly explains the nature of a great deal of the evidence given in respect of what happened or was intended at the Court of 1886, and that this is the cause of the apparent colouring with which a great deal of the evidence is tinctured, superadded to the evident desire on the part of some of the witnesses to obtain an interest in No. 14 through any channel which would effectuate the object they had in view. Mr. McDonald, in his address to the Native Appellate Court as agent for Himiona Kohai, pointed out that Judge Wilson's evidence was unsatisfactory on many points, chiefly as to what had happened on the 25th November and the Ist December in regard to the setting-apart of No. 14. There evidently is a misconception on Judge Wilson's part relative to the circumstances associated with the setting-apart of Nos. 9 and 14, but, as regards the final purpose for which the last-named section was appropriated, he is consistently positive on all occasions that No. 14 was allotted to Kemp absolutely. Mr. McDonald's own evidence, unfortunately for himself as a critic, also contains some inconsistencies and is to a certain extent theoretical, especially as regards the setting-apart of Section 14, as it appears to be based on the assumption that the descendants of Te Whatanui had not accepted No. 9 during the sitting of the Court of 1886, consequently it was necessary that No. 14 should be left available for their selection. Part of his evidence also appears to be visionary and imaginative, especially the account contained in the Manawatu Farmer as regards the proposal to set apart land at Papaitonga for the descendants of Te Whatanui, as the evidence shows that it was purely accidental that the western end of No. 14 was ultimately placed in that locality some time after the Court sat, in consequence of there being insufficient land to satisfy the area required to the eastward of the railway-line, where the aforesaid division was originally placed, probably over a mile from Lake Papaitonga. It will be seen, therefore, that the acquisition of Lake Papaitonga and the land adjacent for public purposes, which it is stated gave rise to the suggestion to set aside land for Te Whatanui's descendants in that locality, could not have been accomplished through the medium of the Ngatiraukawa, as the lake was situated at a considerable distance from the section first offered to them. The idea was a very laudable one, but it has the appearance of having been thought of subsequent to the first setting-apart of the land at Ohau. - - Before the Native Land Court in 1891 Mr. McDonald stated that the descendants of Te Whatanui had agreed to take No. 9, but before the Commission and the Appellate Court he stated that he was not aware that they had selected that section. Before the Supreme Court in 1894 he stated that after the 1,200 acres were set apart near Lake Horowhenua there arose a discussion as to who of the Ngatiraukawa were to be included. The question naturally arises: If the section

163

Gγ.— 2A

near the lake had not been accepted, why should a discussion arise as to whom it should be allotted to ? Mr. McDonald, in his letter to the Manawatu Farmer, states that after the Muaupoko had duly consented and approved his suggestion to place the land for the descendants of Te Whatanui at Papaitonga the allotment was placed upon the tracing of the Horowhenua Block in use at the outside meeting, but it afterwards appeared—that is, before the Native Land Court had been asked to confirm this or any subdivision—that Ngatiraukawa would not accept this 1,200 acres or any other 1,200 acres in satisfaction of their claims to Horowhenua. Under cross-examination by Mr. Beddard, Mr. McDonald gives an explanation of the statement contained in the aforesaid letter relative to setting apart the 1,200 acres at Papaitonga, to the following effect: " I thought the 1,200 acres would have extended to Waiwiri when I made the suggestion. I do not suggest that Sir George Grey would have cared for Ohau without Waiwiri. My strong impression still is that the 1,200 acres at first extended across the railway to Waiwiri." In reply to Sir Walter Buller he made the following statement relative to the Ohau section (Papaitonga): "I suggested the Ohau section to them (the Muaupoko) before the Court of the 25th November. Between the 25th November and the Ist December it appeared that the Ngatiraukawa objected to the Ohau section. I am not aware that the Ohau section was offered to Ngatiraukawa at all till it was mentioned in the Court on the 25th November. The Ohau section was approved of by the people, and put on the tracing before we went into Court on the 25th November. Am not prepared to contradict Kemp and other witnesses if they say the Ohau section was offered to the descendants of Whatanui outside the Court before the 25th November. No. 14, as shown on W.D. 508, was put on the plan by Palmerson. It was originally all east of the railway, and corresponded with the section shown on the tracing." In reply to the Chairman of the Boyal Commission relative to the Court map W.D. 508 and the position of No. 14 on it : "If you look at Subdivision 14 you will see that as it is marked on the Court map it does not come anywhere near the Waiwiri Lake (Papaitonga); it does not cross the railway-line, and runs a long way across the Ohau. Is that an error?—l cannot say if it is. No. 14, as marked on this map, now scales 1,400 acres, but No. 6, which is marked 4,620 acres, scales on the map 600 acres less than there ought to be, but by putting No. 14 into the position it occupies on the map on the wall of the Court it gives No. 6 its proper area ?—Yes, that is either a mistake or a forgery. I have a very strong impression on my mind that if the tracing could be found the 800 acres does not cross the railway. lam certain the 1,200 acres extended at first to the Waiwiri. If you look at No. 14 with a glass you will see that it was marked 3 ?—Yes. That has been put in afterwards?—l am sure it has. I will swear that I could not get from Mr. Lewis any statement that he would take the 1,200 acres here or there, and that the two were left up to the last minute when the Court was going to adjourn, when I asked to have both left in the name of Kemp." An analysis of the foregoing extracts of evidence will show that it is full of discrepancies and inaccuracies: for instance, the statement about setting apart the land at Papaitonga, that before the Native Land Court had been asked to confirm the section at Ohau it had transpired that Ngatiraukawa would not accept this 1,200 acres or any other 1,200 acres in satisfaction of their claim to Horowhenua. In reply to Sir Walter Buller, Mr. McDonald stated that it was between the 25th November and the Ist December that it appeared that Ngatiraukawa objected to the Ohau section (Papaitonga). It will be noted that in the first statement it is asserted that it was before the Court had been asked to confirm the section at Ohau that it was known that Ngatiraukawa had objected to it, but according to the second version it was after the Court had set apart the section at Ohau on the 25th November that Ngatiraukawa objected to it. Under cross-examination by Mr. Beddard Mr. McDonald stated that his strong impression still is that the 1,200 acres at Ohau extended across the railway to Waiwiri. To Sir W. Buller he stated that No. 14 as shown on the Court plan W.D. 508 was originally all east of the railway, and corresponded with the section shown on the tracing. To the Chairman of the Boyal Commission Mr. McDonald stated that he could not get from Mr. Lewis any statement that he would take the 1,200 acres here or there, and that the two sections were left up to the very last minute, when the Court was going to adjourn, when I asked to have both left in the name of Kemp. This statement, that both the sections of 1,200 acres were left to the last minute, is a curious assertion, when the records show, and Mr. McDonald as well as other witnesses have stated, that one of the sections, No. 9, was set apart in Kemp's name for the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, and No. 14 was awarded to Kemp on the 3rd December, after all the other subdivisions had been finally disposed of. How, therefore, could both sections be left till the last minute ? Moreover, Mr. Lewis, in all probability, left Palmerston North on the afternoon of the Ist December to catch the coach at Foxton the following morning for Wellington, as there is evidence that.he was in Wellington on the 3rd December. The following evidence was given by Mr. Donald Fraser relative to No. 14 before the Boyal Commission: — In reply to Mr. Stevens : When was your first connection with the Horowhenua Block?— The first I recollect of it was advancing him (Kawana Hunia) money in 1873 to carry out the Court at Foxton in 1873. You have been acting in connection with the Horowhenua Block previously to the subdivision : did you make any proposals with regard to subdivision ?—No. I was not at the subdivision of 1886. When did you first become aware of the subdivision, or first take part in the discussion about it ?—About 1889. This young man (Warena Hunia) came and complained that he could not get any share of his rent. He understood he was a co-owner in the block (No. 11) for which Kemp was drawing £400, and he could not get any. He said if I was going to Wellington he would go too. We came to Wellington, and he (Warena) went to Kemp and wanted some money from him, and I believe he got £100. He wanted Kemp to give him No. 14 that he might lease it. Kemp demurred for a time, and said, " Well, no. I have promised that to my sister."

a.—2a

164

The following questions were put by Sir W. Buller : You told us that when you went to Wanganui with Warena you heard him ask Kemp to let him have Section 14, was it not ? —Not in Wanganui; in Wellington. Do you remember the time ? —I think it was about 1889, previous to any action being taken in the Court, and previous to my holding power of attorney. You understood Kemp then to say that he would not do that because he had promised it to his sister ?—Yes ; her name was Bora Hakaraia. When Kemp said he had promised it to his sister, what did Warena say?—He did not say anything particularly, he appeared to acquiesce. So far as you are aware, nothing more was said on the subject between Warena and Kemp?—No. Neither then or at any subsequent period after you got power of attorney ? —After I got that and during the negotiations at Palmerston in 1890-91. Warena was there very seldom, though Wirihana was. I said, in my opinion these blocks were cut out, one of them to satisfy the Ngatiraukawa, and the other to go back to the people. To whom did you say that?—To Wirihana and Warena, for whom I was acting. You did not say that to Kemp ?—Yes. I mentioned it to him on one occasion at Palmerston. What did he say?—He did not give any definite reply. He said, so far as I recollect, "It is not finally settled with the Ngatiraukawa yet," and then the Ngatiraukawa had not accepted anything. These were the only intimations you can remember that you made of your opinion ? — Yes. You have been in friendly connection with me the whole of this time ?—Yes. You are aware I had become lessee of nearly the whole block, and had purchased some small portions which were cut off ? —Yes. You never intimated to me that you thought Kemp ought to return this to the tribe instead of selling and leasing it ? —No, I do not think I did. Acting under your power of attorney, and in Warena Hunia's best interests, you did instruct Barnicoat to lodge a caveat against dealing with No. 6 ?—I think I did. But you never instructed him to lodge one in respect to No. 14 ? —No. The only conversation you had with the presumptive owner was the conversation at Palmerston when you said, by way of suggestion, "I think this should go back"?— Yes, in 1891. Was there anything said at the time between yourself and McDonald in relation to Kemp as to Section 14 ? —I do not remember that there was. In reply to questions put by Mr. A. L. D. Fraser: Had you anything to do with the pamphlet published by Warena? —Yes. You remember he there protested against Kemp's actions in regard to No. 14 ?—Yes. It will be noted by the foregoing evidence that Mr. Fraser does not appear to have much knowledge about No. 14. He did not become aware or take part in the discussion about the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block in 1886 until 1889, and what he knows on the subject he has heard from other persons. In 1890, or 1891, he stated that, in his opinion, the two blocks —meaning No. 9 and No. 14—were cut out, one for the Ngatiraukawa, and the other to go back to the people, and that he suggested this to Kemp. These were the only intimations he made about the matter. Never told Sir Walter Buller that he was of opinion that Kemp ought to return No. 14 to the tribe. Had not taken, action as attorney for Warena Hunia to lodge a caveat against dealing with No. 14. There does not appear to be any protest about No. 14 m the pamphet referred to, beyond this statement that Kemp had kept the 1,200 acres. The pamphlet was not written until 1892, about six years after the Horowhenua Block was subdivided in 1886, and at a time when Kemp and the Hunia family were at the height of their quarrel relative to Subdivision 11 being held in trust. Touching the preparation of the pamphlet referred to: Mr. McDonald, in answer to Sir W. Buller, before the Native Appellate Court at Levin, relative to the pamphlet circulated by Warena Hunia in 1892 relating to the Horowhenua Block, stated, " I did not assist Mr. Barnicoat in preparing that statement. lam not responsible for one word of it. I differed with Mr. Barnicoat regarding it in 1891, and received no more pay from Mr. Donald Fraser. I told Donald Fraser and Barnicoat, also Wirihana Hunia, that they were all wrong." It is probable that there is no other Native-land case in the colony that has been so much discussed as the Horowhenua case, nor any case in which so many different views have been promulgated irrespective of whether such views were founded on an accurate knowledge of the facts or not. A great deal of trouble and misconception has also been caused by the hostile attitude which existed between Major Kemp and the Hunia family, a state of affairs which seems to have spread amongst the supporters of each party. Major Kemp's statement in the Court of 1890 that he held No. 14 for Ngatiraukawa has been commented on as a proof that he held both No. 14 and No. 9 as alternative sections for the descendants of Te Whatanui, but the circumstances under which the statement was made must be fully considered before the actual state of the matter can be understood, and in connection therewith the following circumstances must be kept in view—viz., that he had previously stated, in reply to an application made by Warena Hunia on the 24th July, 1888, to let him have 700 acres of No. 14, as he (Warena) wished to raise money on it to pay off his debts, that he had promised the land to his sister, Bora Korako. This does not appear to be consistent with the statement made in 1890 that he held the section for Ngatiraukawa. Both of these statements have the appearance of being mere excuses either to avoid doing something he did not desire to do, or else to give a wrong impression for some purpose known to himself as to the position he occupied in regard to the land in question. Before the Commission he stated that he held the land as trustee for certain persons who were in his mind, and that he also held it as sole owner, but that he had some one in his mind to whom he proposed to allot a portion of it. Before the Appellate Court Kemp stated No. 14 was for himself, and represented his share of the block at the subdivision of 1886. As regards the statement made by Major Kemp in 1890, it should be borne in mind that it was made after a long and fruitless attempt outside to adjust the dispute between himself and Warena Hunia about the subdivision of No. 11, then before the Court, and that during the attempt to settle the matter the area of the land held by the parties to the case in the Horowhenua Block was under discussion. At the time that Kemp made the statement that he held No. 14 for the Ngatiraukawa he was fully aware that No. 9 had been definitely allotted to the descendants of Te

165

G.—2a

Whatanui, as he had been in communication with the Native Department between April, 1887, and August, 1890, on the subject, and had written to the Native Minister on the Bth of the lastnamed month consenting to the question of ownership amongst the descendants of Te Whatanui being referred to the Native Land Court, consequently the statement that he held No. 14 for the Ngatiraukawa, when at the same time he was aware that No. 9 had been allotted to them, was a mere delusion, and liable to create a wrong impression—provided he did state so, which he denied in the Native Appellate Court having done in the manner it is recorded in the minutes of the Court. The entry in the minute-book relative to the foregoing matter is inexplicable, the reference to No. 9 and No. 14 being hopelessly jumbled together. Touching the correspondence referred to, Kemp wrote to Mr. Lewis on the 30th April, 1887, acknowledging receipt of a letter sent to him relative to the land set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and stated that he was waiting until Pomare arrived from Auckland, and as soon as he arrived the names will be settled for the 100 acres and the 1,200 acres. On the 21st July, 1890, Bu Beweti and Te Aohau Nikitini wrote Mr. Lewis relative to No. 9, and Kemp wrote on the same subject to the Native Minister on the 24th July, 1890. In reply to Mr. A. McDonald, before the Appellate Court, Kemp explained that what he meant by the evidence he gave in 1890 —" That No. 14 is for the descendants of Te Whatanui; it is not for me alone," &c. : What I meant by that was that the land was mine, and that I could give it to whom I liked. The descendants of Te Whatanui chose No. 9. I never intended them to have two sections. It was settled in 1886 that they should have No. 9. I said that if they would give me No. 9 they should have No. 14. In reply to the Court the witness stated : I made use of the words quoted in 1890 because the descendants of Te Whatanui had quarrelled amongst themselves, and I allowed them a choice of the sections again. I told them outside the Court that, as they were dissatisfied with No. 9, I would exchange No. 14 for it if they wished. To Mr. McDonald: Muaupoko would not conclude, from what I said in 1890, that I was holding No. 14 for them, if the Ngatiraukawa did not take it. All Muaupoko knew in 1890 was that No. 14 was my own. They knew that it was given to me in 1886. To the Court: One reason for my saying what I did in 1890 was that I wanted the Ngatiraukawa to give me back the Baumatangi. To Mr. McDonald : I was not afraid in 1890 to say that No. 14 was my own in case the Muaupoko might object. Touching the inference that Kemp was actuated by some ulterior motive in 1890, when he made the statements referred to, the following reply, given to a question put by Sir W. Buller before the Boyal Commission, gives an indication of what was in his mind. After detailing what he had done relative to the setting-apart of the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui, he stated, in reply to a question as to what he did with the 1,200 acres they declined to accept: "I kept it in my own name, so that it should not be taken by others. They have founded their accusation against me on account of this block. When the quarrel between us (meaning himself and the Hunia family) commenced, they said upon this pretext that I had stolen the land." The witness, before the Native Appellate Court, stated, relative to the setting-apart of No. 9 for the descendants of Te W 7 hatanui at the Court of 1886: " I was present at the meeting with Lewis in the Courthouse, arranging the boundaries of No. 9. Palmerson was there. The boundary was finally settled then and there. Mr. Lewis and the descendants of Te Whatanui agreed to the boundaries as altered, and the matter was completed. It (No. 9) was taken into Court again, and awarded to me for the descendants of Te Whatanui." The explanation given by Major Kemp of the meaning of the statement made by him in the Court of 1890 has been rather adversely criticized as "improper," but that seems rather a severe condemnation under the circumstances, especially when it is taken into consideration that a witness in the Native Land Court is not afforded an opportunity of having his evidence read over to him to admit of corrections being made at the time, and the account of the proceedings are consequently not verified, but were merely in those days, especially if the presiding Judge did not understand Maori, the understanding of what took place before the Court through the medium of the interpreter, who possibly may have been an incompetent person. According to the principles of evidence also, although the express admission of a party to the suit, or admissions implied from his conduct, are evidence against him, he is at liberty to prove that such admissions were mistaken or untrue. Assuming the explanation given is the correct version of what was really intended by Kemp when making the statement, it appears to mean that, as he was aware of the discussion amongst the descendants of Te Whatanui, he was prepared to let them have No. 14 in place of No. 9 if they elected to make the exchange, as it would have suited the interest of Muaupoko to get back that section if possible. However the case may be, it is immaterial to the matter at issue, as an admission by Kemp that he held the land for Ngatiraukawa does not constitute a trust, as the matter rests entirely as to whether a trust was intended at the time the land was set apart; and if there was no such intention Kemp's admission is of no avail, as a trust would not be created by such admission, nor would he be created a trustee in consequence. There are cases where an admission of that kind would be strong evidence in support of a trust, but the case now under consideration does not come within that category. For instance, it has been laid down by legal authorities on equity-jurisprudence that, as it is not necessary that a trust be declared in writing, but only so manifested arid proved, no form is requisite either as regards the nature of the instrument or the language ; the statute will be satisfied if the trust can be established by any subsequent acknowledgment of the trustee, however informally or indirectly made, or by a letter under his hand, or by a recital in a deed, providing it relates to the subject-matter, and the precise nature and object of the trust can be ascertained. In the case now under consideration, any apparent admission by Kemp that he held the land for others is immaterial, as it has to- be proved that the Court intended to establish a trust in the first place to give any weight to Kemp's statement as collateral evidence in support of a trust. It is not

G.—2a

166

a question as to what Kemp had in his mind, or what he intended to do, but what was actually done and intended by the Court. Another misconception relative to the allotment of No. 14 to Major Kemp, which appears to have arisen and confused matters, is the question of ancestral right asserted by the Ngatipariri to that part of the block, who appear to be influenced by the impression that because the 1,200 acres ultimately allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui near Lake Horowhenua was located on land they claim to be entitled to ancestrally —that when No. 14 was rejected by those people, it should have been handed over to their hapu as compensation for the acreage appropriated out of the part of the block they assert was theirs. This is merely a distorted view held by some of the owners, as the question of ancestral right or Maori custom was not taken into consideration when the land was subdivided in 1886, the proceedings being based on a voluntary arrangement, of which one of the chief essentials was that each of the 143 persons in the certificate of 1873 should receive an individual share. Another phase of the question is also overlooked by those who support that view of the matter, and that is that practically No. 14 was never actually set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui, for, although it was apparently appropriated for that purpose on the 25th November, the Muaupoko, who were present at Palmerston North, were fully aware that the intention to actually set apart the land at Ohau for the aforesaid purpose was abandoned on the Ist December, when the 1,200 acres were located near the lake, over which there was a great deal of discussion relative to the boundaries before the question was finally settled. The Muaupoko also appeared to be fully aware of the intention to allot No. 14 to Major Kemp on the 3rd December, and they raised no objection to it being done, although challenged to do so by the Court. In corroboration of the statement that the Muaupoko were aware that another 1,200 acres was set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui in lieu of the 1,200 acres first set apart for them at Ohau, the following extract from the evidence given by Wirihana Hunia before the Supreme Court in 1894, in the case of Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui v. Warena Hunia, explains what was done in the matter. After describing to the Court the manner in which the division of the land was made in 1886, the witness stated, touching the matter referred to, " Then the land for the descendants of Te W 7 hatanui was consented to. The descendants of Te Whatanui were not satisfied with that (meaning the 1,200 acres at Ohau). It was put in Kemp's name to give to these people. As they were not satisfied, 1,200 acres were cut out of No. 11. That the tribe has agreed to, and it was settled." Later on the same witness stated, with reference to the 1,200 acres set apart on the 25th November, " The 1,200 acres was the last the decision was given on. That is the land that was first given to the descendants of Te Whatanui. It was given to Kemp to give to them because the 1,200 acres had been taken out of No. 11. Then Kemp said to me privately, ' Leave that in my name ' (the piece Sir Walter Buller is now leasing). I said, ' Oh, very well.' ' The statement is rather jumbled, as well as being incorrect as to the reason for setting apart the 1,200 acres referred to, but it serves to show that the 1,200 acres last set apart was not allotted to Kemp for the descendants of Te Whatanui, as all the people had agreed, according to Wirihana Hunia's statement, that the other 1,200 acres (No. 9) should be allotted them. Before the Commission the same witness gave evidence inconsistent with the statement made before the Supreme Court. The following question was put by the Chairman, " Did you agree, at the Palmerston meeting, that this land was to be given to Kemp in his own right ?"—to which the witness replied, " No; we gave it to him in his own name, not for himself, but to be given to the Ngatiraukawa.'' The following questions were put by Sir Walter Buller to Wirihana Hunia relative to No. 14 : With regard to the 1,200 acres held by Kemp at Papaitonga, you say it ought to be returned.to the tribe ?—Yes, to give it back to the people who are entitled to it. Are you not aware that Kemp has been dealing with the whole of this land?— Yes; I have heard so. Have you ever taken steps to protest against these dealings by Kemp with this land ? —No. Have you never lodged a caveat ?—I have seen several caveats; but I think not. You say you did not lodge any caveat during the last ten years against Kemp in respect of No. 14 ?—No. Why did you not, if this land belonged to the tribe and you were not friendly with Kemp ? Why did you not lodge a caveat against leasing to me or to any one ?—I thought that Kemp was trustee for this Block No. 14, and that after the matter had been settled with regard to No. 11 I would set to work about No. 14. But you kept this shut up in your heart all the time? —Yes; that was my in ward, thought. You did not tell any member of the tribe about it ?—No; I kept it to myself, because I felt, according to Native custom, this land was mine : it belonged to my ancestors. Mr. A. L. D. Fraser put the following questions: You said that Warena asked Kemp for No. 14 to lease? —Yes. How do you know that?—l told him and Donald Fraser to go to Kemp and ask him for it. Have you ever heard Kemp say that Warena asked him for it ?—I heard Kemp say so in Court. Did he say so before the Commission ?—Yes; he mentioned that Warena and Donald Fraser came to him about this piece of land (No. 14). At the Court of 1886 was this the position: that Section 14 was first set aside for Te Whatanui?—Yes. Then there was this difference of opinion between certain of the Whatanui and the Muaupoko as to locality ?—Yes. And Subdivision 9 was cut out ?—-Yes. And both were put in Kemp's name ?—Yes ; and then they were to choose the block of land that they wished. And that was the understanding when they had chosen No. 9or No. 14. What was to be done with the other piece?—lf No. 9 had been chosen, then No. 14 was to go back into No. 11; and if they had chosen to select No. 14, then No. 9 would have gone back into No. 11. Was that understood in 1886?— The Ngatipariri thought the same. According to what is right, Block 14 belonged to me and my people, but No. 9 was my own block and some of my own hapu. If they had selected No. 14, then No. 9 would have gone back into Warena's block, if it had not been that both blocks had been put under Kemp's name.

167

G.—2a

Witness gave similar evidence before the Native Appellate Court, with the addition that he admitted that Kemp had asked him to allow No. 14 to be put in his own name, to which he consented, but did not understand that it was for him alone. Witness, in reply to Sir W. Buller, stated that he had heard Mr. Barnicoat (his brother's counsel), state before the Native Land Court in 1890 that the descendants of Te Whatanui had definitely accepted Baumatangi (meaning No. 9) and had refused the Ohau section (No. 14). Bemember stating that when No. 11b was awarded to his brother in 1890 that he knew that No. 9 had been cut out. Heard Nicholson (Aohau) say in the Native Appellate Court that he selected No. 9in 1886 and that the matter was settled. It was not till 1894 that he became aware that Ngatiraukawa had accepted Baumatangi (No. 9). Believed down to 1894 that Kemp held No. 14 and No. 9in trust for the descendants of Te Whatanui and not for himself. Would have considered it dishonest of Kemp to have disposed of No. 14 in any other way up to 1894. It would not have been right for him (Kemp) to have given No. 14 to him before Ngatiraukawa had made their choice. It would be equally dishonest of me to ask him for it, and that is why I did not do so. Did not remember asking Kemp to give him No. 14 about 1889. Bemember saying something to Kemp about No. 14. [Horowhenua Commission, page 54, questions 204 to 207, read.] Witness remembered giving that evidence and admitted it was true. Thought that Te Aohau Nicholson and party really wanted Baumatangi (No. 9). Kemp was delaying the transfer of the section in the hope that they would choose No. 14. Thought that they would insist on having Baumatangi (No. 9). Admitted that it was wrong to ask Kemp to give him No. 14 under the circumstances. In reply to Mr. Nicholson (Aohau Nikitini), before the Boyal Commission, Wirihana Hunia stated : I was present at the Court that sat at Palmerston North in 1886 when the Horowhenua Block was subdivided. I forget whether I heard you object to have No. 14. I saw Mr. Lewis at Palmerston. Ido not recollect whether it was after Mr. Lewis came that the block was changed from 14 to 9. I only knew that Kemp held those two blocks in his hand. It will be seen that the foregoing evidence is full of inconsistencies. In the first place, before the Supreme Court in 1894, witness states that 1,200 acres was cut out of No. 11 and allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui, because they were not satisfied with the 1,200 acres first allotted them at Ohau. After that the 1,200 acres at Ohau was allotted to Kemp. Before the Commission witness stated that the. land was given to Kemp for Ngatiraukawa. He repeated this statement before the Native Appellate Court. Witness, although he was aware that Kemp held this land (No. 14) for the descendants of Te Whatanui, admits that he requested his brother (Warena) to apply to Kemp for part of it in 1888. He also states that he believes he was wrong in doing so, but admits that he was aware afterwards that Kemp was selling and letting parts of No. 14 to Sir W. Buller, and that he did not interfere or make any protest against his doing so. Asked, if he knew it was wrong, why he had not protested before, he stated that a chance was opened by the Commission to say it is wrong, and he had come forward to do so. It will be seen by Wirihana Hunia's evidence that over ten years was allowed to elapse before he and others preferred a claim to section 14 or entered any protest against Kemp dealing with the land as if it was his own. Wirihana's explanation of this long silence is that they knew that it was no use appealing to Kemp for redress, but as soon as a tribunal was established where they could be fairly heard they asserted a claim. This explanation of his singular inactivity in the matter cannot be received, as there were other modes of protesting against Kemp's action had they desired to do so, which they did not avail themselves of. The present endeavour to prove that Kemp is not the beneficial owner of the section has the appearance of a preconcerted attempt to retaliate on him for his action in establishing a trust in No. 11, as the whole of the evidence tends to show that nothing was heard of the supposed trust in No. 14 until quite recently. Wirihana admits that he was aware that No. 9 was allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui in 1886, and that he had heard Mr. Barnicoat state before the Court in 1890 that they had accepted it, and had refused to accept the section at Ohau (No. 14), yet he states in the face of this admission that he was not aware until 1894 that No. 9 had been so selected. The statement made by Wirihana Hunia that he was not aware until 1894 that No. 9 had been definitely set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui cannot be relied on, as there can be no doubt that he and all the Muaupoko present at Palmerston North in 1886 were fully aware that the Ohau section first set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui was rejected by them, and that No. 9 was set apart for them instead on the Ist December. The whole of the evidence given by the Native witnesses in support of the theory propounded that No. 14 was intended either for the descendants of Te Whatanui or else for Muaupoko, besides bearing on the face of it the impress of an oft-repeated tale, is tainted with interest, and is utterly unreliable. The Commissioners in their report, referring to the evidence of the Natives found in the minutebooks of the Court in connection with the Horowhenua Block at former hearings, state : " We regret that we have to report, speaking generally, that the evidence is most unreliable. The Natives themselves seem to have made it a practice to discuss before going into the various Courts the testimony which they should give, and to have built up that testimony, not according to facts, but according to the exigencies of the case which they wished to make in the Court." This kind of proceeding is not confined to the proceedings referred to, but is a common practice, until manufacturing evidence to suit the circumstances to be established has become quite a usual occurrence; and, judging by the statement of some of the Native witnesses before the Native Appellate Court, the same practice was observed before the Eoyal Commission, in the hope that they would regain No. 14 to their own use, as a means of punishing Major Kemp for the wrong it was alleged he had perpetrated against them. The alternative theory also about Native custom and ancestral right intermingled with the question at issue is entirely untenable, and also shows how far a matter can be pushed to establish a claim on an imaginary basis. In fact, it is an obvious absurdity, under the circumstances, to attempt to establish such a position, for the reason that

G.—2a.

168

neither Native custom nor ancestral right were matters in anywise associated with the scheme of subdivision of the Horowhenua Block in 1886. Some stress has been laid on the nature of the minute entered in the Court records on the 3rd December, 1886, in respect of the application made by Major Kemp for an order in his favour for No. 14, as proof that that section was also set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The minute referred to is to the following effect: " Application from Major Keepa te Bangihiwinui for confirmation of that order for 1,200 acres in his own name," (as shown upon tracing before the Court). Various theories have been propounded to account for the before-mentioned minute without throwing much light on the matter, and possibly Judge Wilson's explanation is the most lucid on the subject—i.e., that it was owing to Kemp using the word " whakatuturu " when making the application, and the interpreter translating it to mean "confirmation," that the particulars were entered in that form. If Judge Wilson's solution of the matter is the correct one—and there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for not accepting it—that disposes of the theory about No. 14 being set apart as an alternative section for the descendants of Te Whatanui, as that destroys the'only link of connection with the first appropriation of the section in question for that particular purpose. Although the Supreme Court has decided that it was not a matter for inquiry by the Native Appellate Court whether it was competent for the Native Land Court to commence its proceedings de novo on the Ist December, and nullify all that was done on the 25th November, it may not be out of place to cite the opinion of the Supreme Court as to the power of the Native Land Court to set aside a former proceeding. A case in point is the decision of Mr. Justice Bichmond in Mullooly v. Macdonald. In that case the Court held that neither the order nor the minute of the proceedings formed a valid foundation of title. As to the minute, it is a minute and nothing more. It is not possible to attribute to it the force of an order of Court, or to regard it as an unalterable record of a decision; in fact, it must be taken as no more than a memorandum for the use of the Judge to whose proceedings it relates, and it was competent to him to correct a mistake or otherwise depart from the terms of the minute when he drew up, signed, and sealed his formal order. As regards the setting-apart of the 1,200 acres on the 25th November at Ohau for the descendants of Te Whatanui, all that was actually done by the Court was to order that the locality of the 1,200 acres be delineated on the plan. No order was drawn up or signed and sealed, nor were the proceedings otherwise authenticated. If it is correct, as asserted by Judge Wilson, that No. 14 was allotted to Major Kemp absolutely as his share of the block, then there could be no obligation attached that he should transfer it to the Muaupoko. The matter would therefore be in the position he evidently considers it to be—that it was optional on his part to include any one he may desire to, as intimated by him in his evidence before the Commission. It may possibly be considered that No. 14 and No. 11 are on the same footing, and that the Supreme Court would decide, if the question was referred to it, that Kemp became a trustee for No. 14 on behalf of the Muaupoko in the same manner as he and Warena were considered to have been clothed with a fiduciary capacity in regard to No. 11: but there is a wide distinction between the two divisions. As regards No. 14, as originally set apart the land was in a wilderness state, and was not in the occupation of any one so far as any domiciliary purposes are concerned; but the position was different as regards No. 11, as a large portion of that division, especially near Lake Horowhenua, had always been occupied from an early period by the hapus of Muaupoko, whose ancestors had located themselves in that locality. Their homes, their burial-places, and Lake Horowhenua, from which they derived a large portion of their sustenance, are all situated on No. 11. The Court of Appeal in the case of Warena Hunia v. Meiha Keepa and Others looked on the proposition as an obvious absurdity that the Muaupoko should have handed over absolutely and unconditionally to Kemp and Warena in 1886 a block of land containing over 15,000 acres under the circumstances referred to, in recognition of some undefined claim for services alleged to have been rendered. The Court held that, although the trust was too vague and indefinite to be enforced, there was a resulting trust for these Natives, who, but,for their consent to the arrangement, would have had their rights ascertained and defined by the Native Land Court. As regards No. 14, as originally set apart to the east of the railway, nothing attached to that part of the block more than to any other unoccupied portion, and the Muaupoko could have no reasonable objection to it being allotted to Kemp as his share of the block under the subdivision of 1886, nor any legitimate expectation under the circumstances that he would transfer it to them, more than that they should transfer to Kemp the portions allotted to them, in a similar manner, as their share of the wilderness portion of the block. It is generally admitted that the 800 acres allotted to Kemp with the consent of his co-owners in the block was allotted as an absolute gift to enable him to discharge his pecuniary liability without reference to what proportion of the block might be allotted to him as part of the subdivision then before the Court. The question of ancestral right or Native custom would probably have never been raised had not over 500 acres of No. 14 been taken out of Subdivision 11 to make up the quantity needed in consequence of the insufficient area in the block to the east of the railway to satisfy the quantity needed in that locality to fully provide for Section 14, and that in consequence of this the western end of No. 14 became placed at Lake Papaitonga, the locality in which the Ngatipariri assert an ancestral claim. Nor, probably, would the theory of a trust being attached to that section been disseminated had not this alteration been made; but the alteration has been shown to have been the result of an accident, and consequently does not affect the question at issue. And as regards the other phase of the matter, on which a contention has been raised that

169

a.—2a

the portion to the west of the railway had probably become clothed with a trust through being appropriated out of No. 11, the Supreme Court decided that the land was not subject to a trust on the grounds mentioned in the question submitted for its decision. In the judgment delivered by his Honour the Chief Justice on the questions submitted by the Native Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, the following remarks are pertinent to the question under consideration. The matter referred to was as to the competency of the Native Land Court to alter the location of part of Section 14. His Honour remarked as follows : " Even if there was any irregularity, or something more than irregularity, in this, the matter is not one for inquiry by the Appellate Court under the Horowhenua Block Act. Even if it had been, I should have been inclined to the opinion that in subdivisional proceedings each order must be deemed provisional till the whole subdivision is completed by actual survey. ... As already stated, I incline to the view that any order on subdivision, though made prior to another, is so far provisional that it may be rectified as to location, and even as to area, when the orders come to be completed by actual survey." The answer to the question submitted by the Court, and the decision given by his Honour the Chief Justice relative to the alteration made in the position of No. 14 after the proceedings of the Court of 1886 had terminated, effectively dispels the supposition that existed that the location of part of No. 14 to the west of the railway was in consequence of the action referred to, subject to a resulting trust in favour of the Muaupoko beneficially entitled to No. 11. It is contended on behalf of the opponents of Major Kemp, in support of their theory as to what eventuated on the setting-apart of the land for the descendants of Te Whatanui, that the following circumstances happened : (a) That at the sitting on the 25th November, 1886, the Court cut off No. 14; (b) that on the Ist December No. 9 was cutoff; (c) both sections were awarded to Kemp, the object being to allow the descendants of Te Whatanui to make a choice ; (d) the order of the 3rd December was a confirmation of the order of the 25th November, as an alternative section, because the descendants of Te Whatanui had not selected either; (c) there would be a resulting trust to 143 owners in the section rejected by the descendants of Te Whatanui. The following replies suggest themselves to the foregoing propositions : (a) It is admitted that a section numbered 3, which afterwards became 14, was set apart on the 25th November for the purpose referred to ; (b) it is admitted that No. 9 was cut off on the Ist December ; (c) it is admitted that both sections were awarded to Kemp, but not for the reasons assigned; (d) it is not admitted that the order of the 3rd December was a confirmation of the order of the 25th November, for the reason assigned—because at that date No. 9 had been allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, and as these persons were only entitled to one section, the Court did not intend when making its order on the 3rd December to set apart another section for the same purpose. The. terms of the agreement of 1874 relative to the 1,200 acres near Lake Horowhenua for the descendants of Te Whatanui having been complied with on the Ist December, the Court could not have intended to set apart another section for the same persons on the 3rd December. The proceedings of the 25th November having been rendered nugatory by the action of the Court on the Ist December, there was no order left to confirm on the 3rd December, consequently the order made on that date for 1,200 acres at Ohau, and designated No. 14, in favour of Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui, was a separate order unassociated with anything which had been done before. The question whether the descendants of Te Whatanui accepted the section near Lake Horowhenua is not a material one, as they were not entitled to be consulted, excepting as an act of courtesy. Neither is the question whether Mr. Lewis did or did not select No. 9at the Court of 1886 of any importance, as the question of location was determined by the agreement of 1874. The terms of the agreement are that Keepa te Bangihiwinui consents on behalf of himself and the members of the Muaupoko Tribe, being the persons interested in the Horowhenua Block, to convey to certain of the descendants of Te Whatanui, to be hereafter nominated, a piece of land within the said Horowhenua Block, near the Horowhenua Lake, containing 1,300 acres, the position and boundaries to be fixed by actual survey. It is a reasonable inference to form that had the agreement of 1874 been before the Court on the 25th November, 1886, the parcel of 1,200 acres then set apart at Ohau for the descendants of Te Whatanui would not have been located on that part of the block, and the subsequent questions relative to alternative sections and resulting trusts in connection with the said land would never have arisen. On the Ist December the Court, having been apprised of the actual terms of the said agreement, proceeded to give effect to it so far as it was practicable to do, by laying off adjacent to the Horowhenua Lake a parcel of 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and defining its metes and bounds preparatory to survey, and caused the said boundaries to be recorded in its minutes. It will be seen that the proceedings of the Court to give effect to the terms of the agreement of 1874 were full and unmistakable, and that, so far as the Court was concerned, were final and conclusive, and required nothing further to be done in connection with the matter. The whole of the confusion and misconception which has arisen about No. 14 has been caused by the setting-apart of two sections of 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui and the subsequent alteration of the numbers, and, in addition to this, the confusion has been made more confounded by the hydra-headed theories which have been promulgated about alternative sections and resulting trusts. The following details will show what actually took place : On the 25th November, 1886, a section of 1,200 acres was set apart and numbered 3. On the Ist December this section was denuded of its number, owing to the purposes for which it was set apart being superseded by a subsequent arrangement, and the number was utilised for another section, consequently the section first numbered 3, owing to it not being appropriated to any other use, remained unnumbered until the

22— G. 2a.

G.—2a

170

3rd of December, but owing to ten other subdivisions of the block having been made in the meantime it was then numbered 14, it being the last section to be disposed of. It will be perceived therefore that, although No. 3 had a place assigned to it on the plan, it was left unnumbered between the Ist and the 3rd December, owing to it not being required for the purpose for which it was first appropriated, and actually that ten sections were laid off and appropriated before it came before the Court again as No. 14, and when it did come before the Court the purpose for which it was first set apart had been superseded, and another section (No. 9) had been dedicated to that use. It has been shown that the Court formerly set apart No. 9 on the Ist December for the descendants of Te Whatanui, in pursuance of the terms of the agreement of 1874. This having been accomplished, and the terms of the agreement fulfilled, there was no necessity to do aught else in the matter. Consequently it could not have been intended to set apart another section on the 3rd December for a similar purpose, nor was the Court requested to do so, so far as it is possible to ascertain through the medium of the records, or through evidence subsequently adduced. The position, therefore, is that there is positive evidence of No. 9 being set apart for the purpose on the Ist December, but there is no reliable evidence that on the 3rd December No. 14 was appropriated as well. The only glimmering of evidence which the advocates of that theory can advance is that an entry in the minute-book appears to give a certain amount of support to the contention through the manner in which the application made by Kemp on the 3rd December for Section 14 is recorded ; but the probable cause of the entry appearing in that form is explained by Judge Wilson, and as his explanation is the most feasible one, taken in connection with all the circumstances associated with the setting-apart of the land for the descendants of Te Whatanui, it is fitting that greater weight should be attached to it than to the extrinsic statements of other persons. The following evidence was given by Aohau Nikitini (Neville Nicholson), one of the collateral descendants of Te Whatanui, before the Native Appellate Court relative to the setting-apart of the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui by the Court in 1886, in which he took an active part: — Aohau Nikitini (called and examined by Mr. A. McDonald): I am a Ngatiraukawa. I am one of the descendants of Te Whatanui, and one of the claimants under the agreement of 1874 between Kemp and Sir Donald McLean. I remember the Court of 1886 at Palmerston. I remember the first day the Muaupoko went into the Court. Mangakahia was the Assessor. The first application was for the railway, second the township, and third the 1,200 acres at Ohau. The 1,200 acres at Ohau was, I understand, cut off for us, the descendants of Whatanui, to fulfil the agreement made between Kemp and Sir Donald McLean. I can point out the section on the map. At the time the 1,200 acres was mentioned it was not on the Court map, but was shown on a small map that you had. I saw it on your map at the time. It was all east of the railway then. It has since been extended west of the railway. Winess then described what took place, and that he objected to the 1,200 acres being set apart at Ohau, as that was not in accordance with the arrangement made with Sir Donald McLean. He appealed to Mr. Lewis, Under-Secretary, Native Department, to look into the matter and obtain a copy of the agreement of 1874, which was accordingly done, and the question of location satisfactorily arranged between Mr. Lewis and Major Kemp that the land should be at Baumatangi. By the time the matter had been arranged the first Assessor had left, and it was necessary to wait for the new assessor. The witness, in continuation, states : The Court opened with Kahui as Assessor. I went to the Court. There were several matters brought before it, but I did not pay any attention to them. I was thinking of our section, and cannot be sure whether our section was brought on that day or the next; but I was asked to meet in the Courthouse, and No. 9 was spoken of. The boundaries were gone into. The most important boundary was that on the Hokio side. I wanted the Hokio Stream made the boundary. Kemp said that it was his wish that 2 chains along the stream and lake should be reserved. Lewis asked me to give way, as the land along the stream would be a reserve for all. The Baumatangi section was put on your tracing after our meeting. You and Kemp were insisting on the reserve, and I wanted the river made the boundary. I am not quite clear whether it was the first or second day of Kahui's Court that Baumatangi was brought before it. I was present. The boundaries were read out. Kemp's application for an order for it in his own name was read out also. Afterwards Lewis asked me to send in a list of names. There were two 1,200-acre sections cut off—one at Mangakahia's Court and the other at Kahui's Court. I did not think we were to have the Ohau section, because I had objected to it, and the Raumatangi section was set apart for us on my application. Personally I did not object to the Ohau section, but our elders did, and wished to have Raumatangi, so I gave way to them. If I had urged them to accept the Ohau section they would have done so. I have never written to the Government or Kemp saying that the descendants of Whatanui would accept No. 9. There was no occasion to do so, as Kemp and Lewis were at Palmerston. I considered I had the right to decide. I did not hear anything more in Court about the 1,200 acres at Ohau. I heard outside from Wirihana and others that as we had not accepted the Ohau section it would go back to the people. Wirihana offered us the section at, Ohau for that at Raumatangi, but 1 declined. Wirihana's reason for wanting to exchange was that the cost of fencing Raumatangi would be so great. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevens: I have said that I was at the Court at Palmerston in 1886. Was there a week before the Court opened. Knew at Wanganui before going there that the 1,200 acres was to be at Raumatangi, but when we reached Palmerston I heard that it was proposed to give it at Ohau. It was on that account that I called a meeting of the descendants of Te Whatanui and asked Kemp to attend it. I was present at Mangakahia's Court on the 25th November. The parcels before the Court on that date were the railway-line, the township, and the parcel of

171

G.—2a,

land at Ohau. I knew it was the Ohau section because I saw it delineated on McDonald's tracing, and I heard also that the land was on the south side of the block. There was nothing said in Court on that date about the 1,200 acres at Baumatangi. I stood up to ask the Court to place the land at Baumatangi, near our kainga. The Court did not entertain our objection to the land at Ohau. It would not listen to me. I think the Court made an order in favour of Major Kemp on the 25th November. Kemp applied for it in his name to enable him to fulfil his agreement with McLean, as to descendants of Whatanui. I heard Kemp make the application in the words I have given. I remember Kahui Kararehe's Court. Was present when it opened. The Baumatangi was the first section of 1,200 acres brought before it. I was sent for to come and arrange about the boundaries of No. 9. There was nothing said in Court about the .Ohau section, but I heard Wirihana say outside the Court that it could go back to the people, as we had selected the Baumatangi section. Wirihana was the only person I heard say this, but there were others present. Waretini, Te Waihaki, Ema, and I think Bere sent in a list of the names it was considered were entitled to the 1,200 acres. I told them to do so, and returned to Wanganui, This was after the Court of 1886. Cross-examined by Mr. Baldwin (evidence given by the witness on previous occasion read over to him): I remember Lewis giving evidence about the township and the block at Ohau, but I cannot remember whether he said all you have said. My purpose in objecting was that I wanted to see where the 1,200 acres were located. I had heard that it was at Ohau. I heard this out of Court, and I saw it delineated on the tracing in the Court. When I saw the tracing in Court the Baumatangi section was not shown on it. lam quite sure of this. We settled the question of the boundaries of the Baumatangi section when Kahui's Court sat. They were discussed with us by Kemp and the whole of the Muaupoko. I never saw a section at Baumatangi as shown on map signed by Kemp. When No. 9 was dealt with by Kahui's Court, McDonald and Kemp were acting together. I understand McDonald was acting for Kemp. I cannot remember whether McDonald was present at the discussion over the boundaries. 1 remember an order being made for No. 9 for the descendants of Whatanui. It was made after the boundaries had been discussed between Kemp and ourselves. My recollection is that No. 9 was not awarded until the boundaries had been fixed. I thought it was settled that No. 9 was for us when the order was made. The boundaries were described and objectors called for, none appearing. I think I told the Court we agreed to accept the Baumatangi section, because I was the person who had asked to have it placed there. I considered that, being spokesman of those present, if I agreed the matter was settled. I have always thought so since, and have given evidence to that effect. I was in and about the Court of 1886 until it adjourned sine die. I remember the square foot for Wiremu Matakara. Ido not remember Kemp asking at that time that the Ohau (section) should be allotted to him for himself. Have never heard from any Muaupoko that the Muaupoko had arranged that the Ohau section should be for Kemp for himself alone. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller: I did not hear at Palmerston that Ohau was for Kemp's share. I had no means of hearing whether it was decided at the meeting that Kemp should have it, but I did not hear auy one say so outside or inside the Court. I knew nothing of any subsequent application either by Kemp or McDonald for the Ohau land. Such an application may have been made without my hearing of it. I had no interest in anything before the Court after No. 9 was allotted. lam sure that after No. 9 was finally awarded, on the afternoon of the first day of Kahui's Court, I did not hear anything more about the Ohau section. If the minute-book says that " the Ohau section was afterwards applied for by Kemp," I could not have heard it. I thought it had already been awarded on the 25th November. It was about a day before we went to Kahui's Court that Kemp told me he had agreed to the section for us at Baumatangi. The boundaries were arranged at the Courthouse. After Kemp told me that he had agreed, Lewis also told me that Kemp had consented. The only business at our meeting in the Courthouse was the settlement of the boundaries. Kemp agreed to the location of the land at Baumatangi outside the Court. Lewis had also agreed, and so had I. Ido not think it mattered to Lewis where the section was located. There was no one else whose consent was necessary to the completion of the matter. I do not know what McDonald said about the boundaries, but he took part in the discussion. Kemp and I fixed the boundary of No. 9in the Courthouse. When we were discussing them we had a tracing of the block before us. Kemp and Lewis informed the Court that the location of the parcel at Baumatangi had been settled, and that the boundary towards the Hokio Stream was to be 2 chains from it. Then Kemp stated why he wanted the boundary 2 chains from the. stream. After he had spoken I informed the Court that I insisted upon the stream being the boundary, because the eelpas were in the stream. Lewis asked me to withdraw my objection, as the 2-chain reserve would be for all, and on this ground I withdrew my objection. It was after Judge Wilson resumed his seat on the bench that this took place. That was the settlement of the matter, and was the giving of Raumatangi to the descendants of Whatanui; but Kemp reopened the matter by objecting to our list of names. We have always been in occupation of Raumatangi. I was in Kahui's Court when the 1,200 acres was awarded to Kemp for the descendants of WUatanui. I can swear that it was awarded to Kemp for that purpose. It was so stated in Court. The application to the Court was to award Baumatangi to Kemp, in fulfilment of the agreement between Kemp and Sir D. McLean on behalf of the descendants of Whatanui. I had some talk with Wirihana about an exchange of the Baumatangi and Ohau sections. This was at a considerably later period. The talk about Ohau going back to the people was immediately after the settlement of No. 9. I asked the question, What would be done with the other section ? and Wirihana replied that it would go back to the tribe. I said no more, as it did not concern me who the Ohau section went to. I did not understand at the time that it was to be kept as an alternative section, so that we might have it instead of Baumatangi. I have never heard any of our party say that they had not made up their minds whether they would have Ohau or Baumatangi. After the order was made the matter

a.— 2a

172

was settled, and we had no further claim on the Ohau section. Lewis was present in Court when the order was made for No. 9. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald: When No. 9 was ordered it was distinctly stated that it was for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The same thing was stated when the Ohau section was awarded by Mangakahia's Court. It did not occur to me in 1886 that any one else had a right to say anything about No. 9, and that is why I said the whole thing was settled. When others claimed a right afterwards, it did not alter my opinion. If Kemp had persisted in our having the Ohau section I would have appealed to the law. I mean by appealing to the law that we would have petitioned Parliament. To the Court: Both Kemp and Lewis suggested that we should send in a list of names after No. 9 was awarded. I have never seen the list, but I agreed to it. A perusal of the evidence given by the witness tends to show that the 1,200 acres first set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui at Ohau was objected to by them, and that 1,200 acres was afterwards set apart for the same purpose at Baumatangi and accepted. This section was numbered 9. That it was generally known by the whole of the Muaupoko, and to Wirihana Hunia as well, that the descendants of Te Whatanui had refused the Ohau section and accepted No. 9 at Baumatangi instead, and that, having done so, they had no further claim on the Ohau section. Both Major Kemp and Mr. Lewis were fully aware that No. 9 had been definitely awarded to the descendants of Te Whatanui, and had directed them to send in a list of names for the aforesaid section. It will be seen, therefore, that the statements subsequently made that it was not known whether No. 9 had been definitely set apart in 1886 for the descendants of Te Whatanui are not tenable, and cannot be accepted as being an accurate view of the actual state of the matter; and such opinion can only be accounted for by supposing that the persons who hold it must have adopted a confused notion through the happening of other events, which have delayed the final settlement of the question as to who are the persons to whom the land should be transferred—a question quite distinct from the setting-apart of the land in terms of the agreement of 1874. Touching the setting-apart of Nos. 9 and 14, the following evidence was given by Mr. McDonald before the Native Appellate Court. After narrating the preliminary proceedings, Mr. McDonald stated that up to the 24th November, 1886, only three subdivisions of the block were ready to be taken before the Court, and these sections, in consequence of having been finally agreed to, were placed on the No. 3 tracing. On the 25th the three sections referred to were taken before the Court, and ordered for the following purposes : No. 1, 76 acres, for the railway-line; No. 2, 4,000 acres, for sale to the Government; No. 3, 1,200 acres, for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The section of 1,200 acres set apart as No. 3 on the 25th November afterwards became No. 14. The 1,200 acres at Ohau was objected to by Nicholson on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui. During the interval of five days which occurred between the 25th November and the Ist December the Ngatiraukawa objection assumed a very different aspect, and in consequence of my knowledge of what .the Ngatiraukawa feeling was I considered it right to suggest to Kemp the advisability of setting apart an alternative allotment, so as to prevent Ngatiraukawa from having any cause of complaint. It was not until the afternoon of the Ist December that Muaupoko consented to make the alternative allotment. I say that I personally made the application for No. 14, on the 3rd December, and that no one else did, and what I had on my mind when I made it was that the third order made on the 25th November was left uncompleted on the Ist December, and, though I pretended to know nothing of the legal aspect of the matter, as the Court considered it necessary to confirm the others I thought it safest to get this confirmed. The effect of it was that Kemp had two alternative sections in his hands to satisfy the agreement of 1874 with McLean. I state on my oath that I never heard any proposal by Kemp that the 1,200 acres now known as No. 14 should be allotted to him as his share of Horowhenua, at any meeting or anywhere else. I was present in Court on every occasion on which Horowhenua was before it, and I swear positively that Kemp did not on the 2nd December or at any other time apply in open Court for 1,200 acres for himself .... I do not say that Pomare, Heni, Nicholson, and others did not agree to accept No. 9, but I did not consider their consent sufficient. Lewis and Kemp were the only two who could make Muaupoko safe I did not care at all whether Ngatiraukawa were satisfied or not in 1886, so long as Kemp and Lewis agreed My view is that No. 9 and No. 14 were made alternative sections at my own suggestion. It would, in my view, become Kemp's duty to restore the remaining section to Muaupoko after it had been decided which section the descendants of Whatanui had finally chosen. . . . Ido not know now that the Ngatiraukawa have selected No. 9, or that the matter is finally settled If the descendants of Te Whatanui made the application to the Court for definition of their interests in No. 9, it would be sufficient evidence to me that they had selected it. I admit that I gave the evidence read out before the Appellate Court at Otaki in 1895. If I said Papaitonga it would not be quite correct, because the section did not extend to Papaitonga in 1886. I would consider if both parties to the agreement agreed to any particular section that the matter was settled. Nothing further, in my opinion, would be necessary for the selection of No. 9. I said before the Boyal Commission that in 1886 the Ngatiraukawa strongly objected to both sections ; I am wrong I say that an order was made on the 3rd December, 1886, confirming an order made on the 25th November for 1,200 acres at Ohau. I presume the words used by Judge Wilson on making the order on the 3rd December are correctly given in the minute-book. The application for confirmation was made by myself, and I believe on my responsibility, so far as I know, without reference to Kemp. The idea that the order should be a confirmatory one came from me. I believe and understand that Judge Wilson made it a confirmatory order. If Judge Wilson has said that after consultation with the Chief Judge he decided not to make confirmatory orders, but to treat the orders of the 25th November as abortive, all that I can say is that he acted contrary to the Chief Judge's advice. When I gave my evidence before the Commission there were no maps. They

173

G.—2a

arrived afterwards, and the Chairman asked me if I could identify the plan that was before the Court in 1886. My strong impression still is that the 1,200 acres at first extended across the railway to Waiwiri. . . . Nothing was said in the Court of 1886 to indicate that No. 9 had been accepted unanimously by the descendants of W T hatanui. I did not hear any such statement made. I would not have paid any attention to it if there had. Lewis was the only person there, who could accept it, and he did not do so. If Judge Wilson says that No. 9 was definitely accepted by the descendants of Whatanui, he says that which is not true. My story, I consider, is a wonderfully full and accurate one, considering the time that has elapsed. My memory has been refreshed by reading the minutes'. Wherever my letter to the Manawatu Farmer agrees with the minutes it may be taken as correct. Any part that does not coincide with the minutes is wrong. I wrote it entirely from memory. ... I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in Section No. 14. Evidence given before the Native Land Court in 1895 cited : " There was very great discussion about 1,200 acres in fulfilment of an agreement between Kemp and Sir Donald McLean. It was for the successors of Whatanui. Ngatiraukawa would not accept the 1,200 acres proposed to be given, and another 1,200 acres was given, and Kemp kept the first 1,200 acres." I do not think it possible that I could have used those identical words, but it appears to be how the minute is taken. (Same evidence in Judge Scannell's notes.) The division shown on tracing No. 1 would in the natural course of things be identical with the one applied for in Court if there was no objection to it It appears that I did not mention in the Supreme Court that alternative sections were set apart. ... I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I was never questioned about No. 14 on any occasion on which I gave evidence before 1896. I have told what I believe to be true in this Court; my being here as representative of a person who raises the question of trust has not influenced my evidence. I have never before been questioned specially as to the alternative allotment. I have given a general narrative. No such communication was made to Ngatiraukawa, so far as I know, about the alternative section. The Muaupoko understand clearly that the two sections were to be awarded to Kemp, and he was to convey to Ngatiraukawa whichever they chose. . . . The question of making the alternative section was finally decided during the, dinner-hour of the Ist December, it having been lengthily discussed during the previous five days. I merely had a suspicion in my mind that the Ngatiraukawa might go to Parliament. That is why I suggested to Kemp that another section should be set apart. No. 14 —namely, No. 3 —had been awarded before I made this suggestion. I never applied for it as an alternative allotment. When I applied for a confirmation of No. 14 on the 3rd December I was not aware that Ngatiraukawa had any objection to it. I knew that some of the persons who said they were descendants of Whatanui had made an objection. I did not know that the descendants of Te Whatanui collectively had objected. Under examination by Sir W. Buller the witness stated :No suspicion arose in my mind as to Ngatiraukawa going to Parliament before the 25th November. I cannot say exactly when the suspicion arose in my mind, but the first point was given to it by Nicholson's objection in Court. Then the further information that the agreement had the words " near the Horowhenua Lake " further intensified my suspicion, and I considered it advisable to recommend Muaupoko to lay off the other section. By the other section I mean the Baumatangi section. The Muaupoko agreed to my suggestion. I used the word "confirm" before the Commission in the sense that the voluntary arrangements required confirmation. Mr. Lewis declined to make a choice of the sections, although I urged him to do so. I still adhere to my statement that Mr. Lewis refused in express terms to me to select either section. I am not prepared to contradict Judge Wilson as to what Mr. Lewis said to him. It was finally determined to provide a second section because he (Lewis) would not make a choice I swear that I made the application on the afternoon of the Ist December. I had not then been made aware of the terms of the agreement of 1874. I understood that there had been some objection to the section at Ohau. I was aware at the time of the purport of the agreement. I assume that I became aware of it on the morning of the Ist December. ... If Judge Wilson says that Kemp made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December I must differ from him. My memory was not so definite in 1890 on material grounds as it is now since I have perused the minutes and my memory has been refreshed. When I applied for what is now No. 14, on the 3rd December, I indicated that I wanted confirmation of the order made for it on the 25th November. I cannot remember what the number of it was on that date. It was still No. 3, as far as I know, on the 3rd December. It was the section that was No. 3on the 25th November. No part of the list referring to No. 14 is in my handwriting. I admit that it appears to have been handed in by Kemp on the 3rd December. I believe it was the first put into the Court on the 25th November. When I applied for confirmation of the order for Ohau section on the 3rd December I did not tell the Court I had seen the agreement. I repeat that I made the application for the Ohau section on my own responsibility, very likely without consulting Kemp. I consider that I had authority to do it, and I supposed it was necessary to have the former order confirmed I do not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I have never during the period told any member of Ngatiraukawa that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. Until a few days before the Commission I never mentioned to you that I regarded Kemp as a trustee for No. 14, although I knew you were in occupation of the land, or part of it. . . .1 do not remember any special occasion on which I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat, but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time that I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I cannot remember the time, but I feel sure that I must have done so, or Mr. Fraser would not have known

G.— 2a

174

about it. I would not mention it to Kemp after 1890, because we were bad friends. We were on opposite sides on the Horowhenua question. It was settled in the afternoon of the Ist December that No. 9 should be allotted to Kemp for the same purpose as the Ohau section had been awarded to him. Kemp adopted the suggestion, and brought it before Muaupoko. Ido not know how the proposal was made to Muaupoko, whether it was by Kemp or by me for him. I will not undertake to say positively how it was done. Up to the 3rd December no sufficient acceptance had been made so far as I know, therefore I asked the Court to put both in Kemp's name, to enable him to ratify the agreement of 1874 by the cession of one of them to the descendants of Te Whatanui. The Ohau section had been delineated on the Court plan before the Ist December. According to the tenor of Mr. McDonald's evidence his main contentions in support of his theory that No. 14 was not allotted to Major Kemp absolutely are —(1.) That the section was set apart on the 25th November, and allotted to Kemp on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui, but, as they declined to accept it, another section of 1,200 acres, numbered 9, was set apart for them. (2.) That, so far as he is aware, the descendants of Te Whatanui did not definitely select either No. 3 (afterwards 14) or No. 9 before the Court closed on the 3rd December. (3.) That owing to no selection being made he applied personally on the 3rd December for an order of confirmation for the section first set apart on the 25th November for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and that the Court made an order as requested. (4.) That, owing to Mr. Lewis declining to select either section for the descendants of Te Whatanui, No. 9 and No. 3 (afterwards 14) were kept open till the last minute, and ultimately ordered in Kemp's name. (5.) That he considered that No. 14 had been set apart as an alternative section. Touching the foregoing contentions, neither the evidence adduced nor the circumstances in connection with the matter support them. It is generally admitted that two sections of 1,200 acres were set apart in consequence of the descendants of Te Whatanui objecting to the first one at Ohau. But it is incorrect to say that they did not accept No. 9, the second one set apart, near Lake Horowhenua, as the minute of the Court of 1886 and subsequent evidence tends to show that No. 9 was definitely appropriated for the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, and there is corroborative evidence, if that is deemed of any importance, that they had accepted No. 9. As regards the personal application for confirmation on the 3rd December for section 14, the Court minutes show that the application was made by Major Kemp. Mr. McDonald, when under examination by Mr. Fraser before the Boyal Commission, stated, in reply to the following question relative to No. 14 : " You are clear that you applied for an order in No. 14 ?—Yes, I am trying to speak the truth, and if the books of the Court show that I did not apply, my memory has failed. I am speaking what I believe to be the truth, but I will give in to the books." It will be noted that Mr. McDonald was absolutely positive in 1897 of a matter he was doubtful of in 1896. The circumstances also are opposed to Mr. McDonald's version of the matter that he personally made application for No. 14, for the reason that he had had a violent quarrel in the evening of the 2nd December with Major Kemp about the railway-line, and according to his own admission he had called Kemp all the names he could lay his tongue to. It is highly probable, therefore, that they were not on very friendly terms the following day. The statement made by Mr. McDonald in reply to the Chairman of the Boyal Commission—that owing to his being unable to get Mr. Lewis to state definitely that he would take either section, that the two were left up to the very last minute when the Court was going to adjourn, when he asked to have both left in the name of Kemp—to say the least of it, is wholly incorrect, as No. 9 was finally dealt with on the Ist December, and it is exceedingly doubtful, as has been already shown, whether Mr. McDonald made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December, as he asserts. On the 14th March, 1896, in reply to Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, Mr. McDonald spoke doubtfully about making application for No. 14, and would give in to the books if the minutes were opposed to his belief in the matter; but on the 2nd April, in reply to the Chairman, he swore positively that he made application at the last minute, when the Court was going to adjourn, that both sections (meaning Nos. 9 and 14) be left in the name of Kemp. This betokens a singular deviation of the mind in so short a time, besides being incorrect as a matter of fact. Major Kemp stated in evidence that he applied personally for the order for No. 14 on the 3rd December, 1886, and the records support his testimony. Beference also to the minute-book shows that, with the exception of the three orders on the 25th November, 1886, and the applications for Nos. 4 and 5 on the Ist December, Kemp applied for all the other sections. Touching the theory of alternative allotments, the following evidence, given by Mr. McDonald before the Native Appellate Court, is cited: "I say that I personally made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December, and that no one else did, and what I had on my mind when I made it was that the third order, made on the 25th November, was left unconfirmed on the Ist December. . . . . The effect of it was that Kemp had two alternative sections in his hand to satisfy the agreement of 1874 with McLean I swear positively that Kemp did not, on the 2nd December or at any other time, apply in open Court for 1,200 acres (meaning No. 14) for himself. . . . . My view is that No. 9 and No. 14 were made alternative sections at my own suggestion. . . . . The application for confirmation was made by myself, and, I believe, on my own responsibility, so far as I know', without reference to Kemp. The idea that the order should be a confirmatory one came from me. I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in No. 14. I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I was never questioned about No. 14 on any occasion on which I gave evidence before 1896 I have never before been questioned specially as to the alternative allotment. I never applied for it (No. 14) as an alternative allotment. When I applied for a confirmation of No. 14 on the 3rd December I was not aware that Ngatiraukawa had any objection to it. I know that some of the persons who said they were descendants of Te

175

G.—2a

Whatanui had made an objection. I did not know that the descendants of Te Whatanui collectively had objected. I used the word ' confirm' before the Commission in the sense that the voluntary arrangements required confirmation. If Judge Wilson says that Kemp made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December, I must differ from him. . . . When I applied for what is now No. 14 on the 3rd December I indicated that I wanted confirmation of the order made for it on the 25th November. I cannot remember what the number of it was on that date. It was still No. 3, as far as I know, on the 3rd December. It was the section that was No. 3on the 25th November. No part of the list referring to No. 14 is in my handwriting. I admit that it appears to have been handed in by Kemp on the 3rd December. I believe it was first put into Court on the 25th November. ... I repeat that I made the application for the Ohau section, No. 14, on my own responsibility, very likely without consulting Kemp. I consider that I had authority to do it, and I supposed it was necessary to have the former order confirmed. ... Ido not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I have never told any of the Ngatiraukawa that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. Until a few days before the Commission sat I never mentioned to Sir Walter Buller that I considered Kemp a trustee for No. 14, although I knew he was in occupation of part of it. I do not remember having mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat; but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I could not mention it to Kemp after 1890, as we were not friendly then." The most of Mr. McDonald's evidence about No. 14 being an alternative section is inconclusive, as the following citations from it will show : "I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in No. 14. I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I never applied for it (No. 14) as an alternative allotment. Ido not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I never mentioned to Sir Walter Buller until a few days before the Commission sat that I considered Kemp a trustee for No. 14, although I knew that he (Sir Walter Buller) was in occupation of part of it. Ido not remember having mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat, but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I could not mention it to Kemp after 1890, as we were not friendly then." Before the Supreme Court in 1894 Mr. McDonald spoke as if he was merely assisting Major Kemp, and was not acting, apparently, with the authority that he has since clothed himself with. In reply to Mr. Barnicoat, Mr. McDonald stated, " I was present at Judge Wilson's Court in 1886 during the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block. Was engaged by the Eailway Company. Kemp was on crutches. I did all I could for him. My recollection is that I had to appear from day to day. Was not engaged in any of the subdivisions but the railway-line, but was present in Court the whole time, and assisted Kemp to get the subdivisions made." In reply to Mr. Edwards, the witness stated : " I do not know all that took place in that barn (meaning Palmerson's barn, where the Muaupoko were housed). I went to the barn two or three times a day to see what was doing. I was assisting Major Kemp." By the tenor of Mr. McDonald's more recent evidence it will be perceived that he has assumed the position of an accredited agent, and taken upon himself to carry out arrangements that he admits he did not consult his principal about. As regards the reliability of Mr. McDonald's evidence, his own statements throw doubt upon it, as the following extracts from evidence given by himself at different times will show: — In 1891, before the rehearing Court, under examination by Mr. Barnicoat in respect of Horowhenua No. 11, Mr. McDonald, after stating that he took a particular, especial interest in the discussion because Wirihana Hunia declared that unless his brother was put in the title, that he would not agree to the others, and his work was in danger, remarked, " I wish to say that, having heard what has been said about this in Court, I may unconsciously confuse what I have heard with what I know." Before the Supreme Court in 1894 Mr. McDonald, when under cross-examination by Mr. Edwards, said, " I find great difficulty in disentangling what took place in my mind and what has taken place since. I find great difficulty in doing so and what I have heard since " ; and, in reply to a question as to the number of times he had given evidence about the matter, witness stated, " I was never allowed before to tell my story. I do not say that my memory is confused. I have talked about the matter times out of number." Under cross-examination by Sir Walter Buller before the Boyal Commission Mr. McDonald stated, in reply to a question as to whether he was certain that he was stating the facts correctly, or whether he was trusting to a defective memory, " No ; this thing has been so drilled into me that this is about the twentieth time I have given evidence, and I think the evidence I have given has always been the same. You admit that your memory is defective ?—Not that I know of. Why did you state that in the Supreme Court ?—What I understood I said is this : that I cannot recollect some circumstances as to whether they occurred before or after a certain point of time, but I can trust my memory as to what I said and did myself." In reply to a further question on the same subject witness stated, inter alia, that " Some circumstances which have occurred have been so dinned and drilled into one that I cannot say whether they occurred at a particular time or whether I have heard of them since, but I have no doubt at all as to what I said and did myself." The Commissioners, in their report, after commenting on the unreliable nature of the evidence, state as follows: " A large amount of the testimony is hearsay, and it is evident to us that matters

G.—2a

176

in connection with the block have been so much discussed amongst the Natives that it is impossible for them to sever in their own minds facts which they know from statements which they have heard. This remark does not apply only to the Natives, but also to the Europeans, who have no possible object in giving false testimony. Mr. Alexander McDonald, a cautious, intelligent, experienced, educated man, stated that he was not clear about various matters about which he was questioned, and that he had the greatest difficulty in severing facts which occurred years ago from matters which he had heard since." The following evidence was given by Judge Wilson before the Native Appellate Court in support of the contention that No. 14 was set apart for Major Kemp absolutely : " I am a Judge of the Native Land Court. I presided at a Native Land Court held for division purposes in 1886. . . . The partition was taken by voluntary arrangement, but all that was said was on oath. No ancestral title was proved; the partition was agreed to by the owners. The whole scheme of partition was discussed by them, but it was only disclosed to the Court bit by bit. . . . I see by the minutes that the Court opened on the 25th November. I have never read them through since I signed my orders, nor have I seen the map that was before us in 1886 since I approved it. Before the first Assessor left several partition cases were brought before vs —three, I believe. Whatever was done with the first Assessor was considered by me to be null and void, because the partition of Horowhenua was not complete, and had to be commenced de novo. When we sat after the second Assessor arrived the first thing done was to call over the partitions that had been previously made. The first orders were not all confirmed. The original title for Horowhenua was cancelled by the partition made in 1886. Kemp was a trustee under the original title to Horowhenua. The partition of Horowhenua did away with that trust. . . . No. 14 is correctly marked No. 14 on the plan. It was so marked when I had done with it; I know nothing of any previous number on it. On the second map as approved No. 14 crossed the railway and extended to Waiwiri Lake. The effect of the alteration was to encroach on No. 11 as awarded to Kemp and Warena. Entry on page 200, Vol. 7, reads: ' Application from Meiha Keepa te Bangihiwinui for confirmation of that order for 1,200 acres in his own name, as shown upon tracing before Court.' " With reference to the aforesaid entry Judge Wilson stated, "That is the order for No. 14 to Major Kemp for himself. Ido not know how the word ' confirmation ' came to be there, but I think the clerk took it from the interpreter. Major Kemp probably used the word ' whakatuturu, ' and the interpreter rendered it ' confirmed.' " Witness explains that before Kemp applied for No. 14 in his own name, a section containing 800 acres had been awarded him for the purpose of paying certain legal expenses, and the application for No. 14 following so closely afterwards caused him to hesitate before making the order, as he had considered that part of the 800 acres was for Kemp. The order was therefore left to the very last, to give the Natives time to think of it and object, and as no one objected the order was made. If there had been any objection it would not have been made. Witness stated that he had since heard that the 800 acres was devoted to the purpose for which it was intended, and in that case the 1,200 acres would not be too much for Kemp for his personal share in the block ; the witness continuing, " I was specially careful to challenge in No. 14, because I was then under the impression that No. 10 was for Kemp. I say again that No. 14 was for Kemp himself. As a Court we had nothing to do with what anybody got so long as all agreed." In reply to Mr. McDonald Judge Wilson said, " I repeat that No. 14 was awarded to Kemp for himself, after an award had been made to him for the descendants of Te Whatanui. If No. 14 had not been properly awarded to Kemp, it was open to any of the owners to apply for a rehearing. No. 14 was not awarded by any Court to Ngatiraukawa. From memory I say that I never made an order for any part of No. 14 vesting it in Kemp for the Ngatiraukawa. No. 14 did not cross the railway until after the survey. The order finally made to Kemp for No. 14 was confined to the eastward of the railway. I did not make any order to Kemp on the 25th November, 1886, for the portion of what is now known as No. 14, east of the railway, for the purpose of its being conveyed to the Ngatiraukawa. It was spoken of in Court, but no order was made until after No. 10 was dealt with. We were told in Court that part of what is now No. 14 had been offered to the descendants of Te Whatanui outside of the Court, and that they had refused it. Kemp said in Court that he had offered the land that afterwards became No. 14 to the Ngatiraukawa, and that they refused it. After No. 10 was disposed of Kemp applied to the Court to award No. 14 to him in accordance with their agreement. Objectors were challenged. There is no minute of this. " In reply to Mr. Stevens witness stated, "It would be a voluntary arrangement if the people gave Kemp any part of the block for himself. The award of No. 14 to Kemp was part of the voluntary arrangement. No. 14 was not a gift to Kemp; it fell to his share. The 800 acres given to Kemp was alloted to him for a purpose. It was different with the 1,200 acres (No. 14) —that was for him personally. The 800 acres was to pay legal expenses. It was attempted to place No. 3 where No. 14 now is, but it was taken out of our hands, and afterwards brought back as No. 9. The section now numbered 14 was never No. 3to my knowledge. The alteration from 3to 14 was not a consequential alteration. No. 14 was before my Court to be made No. 3, but it was not made so; an objection was made and it was taken out of our Court, then came back as No. 3, where No. 9is now. No. 14 was spoken of to the Court as being for Te Whatanui's descendants, but it never was awarded to them. I cannot remember how far the offer to give No. 14 to descendants of Te Whatanui went, but I know we never awarded No. 14 to them. As regards No. 3, anything we did on the 25th November lapsed. I can swear that we did not award it to the Whatanuis. The objection made by Nicholson at first Court appears to me to apply to what is now No. 14, and intensifies in my mind that Kemp said in Court that No. 14 had been offered to Whatanui's descendants, and that they had refused it. I am sure I never made any order for it to descendants of Te Whatanui. My memory may be defective; it is quite possible that it is. There was an abortive attempt to put No. 14 through for the descendants of Whatanui, but it failed, notwithstanding what appears in the minutes. The orders for the two 1,200-acre

177

G.—2a

sections were not made to Kemp so that the Whatanuis might have the choice of which section they would take. No. 14 was not handed to Kemp for the descendants of Te Whatanui. They never had a vested right in that block. I cannot swear that No. 14 was ever No. 3, or that it was never No. 3. If No. 14 had been No. 3on the 25th November, 1886, the Government could not have taken it out of our hands to give to the descendants of Te Whatanui. They took it out of our hands because we had not disposed of it. If the order for No. 3on the 25th November, 1886, had been an effective order the Government could not have interfered with it or traversed our order. lam firmly convinced there was no order on the 25th November, 1886, for No. 3 over the section now known as No. 14. As I read the minutes, Nicholson's objections on the 25th November, 1886, related to what is now No. 14. Kemp said first that the Ngatiraukawa objected to No. 14; Nicholson's objection followed. There was no delineation on the plan of No. 14 until the order was made for it. Ido not know how to explain it, but I know that No. 14 was never awarded to Kemp for descendants of Whatanui. No. 14 was not delineated on the plan on the 25th November, 1886—I do not think so. No. 14 was delineated on the plan on the 3rd December, 1886, when it was awarded to Kemp for himself alone. This was some days after the 1,200 acres was awarded him for the descendants of Te Whatanui. I am not prepared to swear that No. 3 was not No. 14, but that is my recollection—that it was not. I will not say that Nicholson's objection was to No. 14. It was Kemp who said there was an objection to No. 14. I will swear that when what is No. 14 came before the Court Kemp and one of Whatanui's descendants said it would not be accepted. The boundaries were not defined on that day—the 25th November, 1886. The application from Major Kemp on the 3rd December, 1886, for confirmation of that order, &c, does not refer to any of the orders or anything that was done on the 25th November, 1886. It was not a confirmation of any order made on that date, nor did it refer to anything done on the Ist December, 1886." In reply to Mr. Baldwin witness stated, " There was evidence taken as to the voluntary arrangement. Kemp and McDonald were both on their oath when they made their statement about the arrangement. The Court was perfectly satisfied that there was a voluntary arrangement. If an order was made for 1,200 acres where No. 14 now is on the 25th November, 1886, it was not an effective order. The Ngatiraukawa objected to it, or it probably would have been awarded to them as No. 3. It was afterwards awarded to Kemp for himself. lam pretty sure we made no order for No. 3 over ground that was afterwards No. 14. The first application for No. 14 was made either on the Ist or 2nd December. There was no order made on either of those dates. The application stood over till the last day of the Court; I did not hurry the matter. T gave plenty of time to the people to object, and challenged very carefully, because Kemp applied for the land for himself. I made the usual challenge. In this case I would be most careful to challenge objectors, because a chief was asking us to excise a piece of land for himself. I am sure objectors were challenged on the first occasion No. 14 came before the Court. I repeat that the clerk was wrong in using the word 'confirmation'; there was no order to confirm. I rested satisfied with the application in No. 14 without further evidence. We were satisfied that there was a voluntary arrangement, and the application was sufficient. I think Kemp said, in making the application, that he was entitled to the 1,200 acres for what he had done, or something to that effect. I cannot recollect exactly. At any rate, he asked the Court to award it to him for himself, and objectors were challenged before the orders were made. I did not consider it my duty to explain to the people that Kemp was getting a very substantial interest in No. 14. I was not empowered to disturb the voluntary arrangement, even by imposing restrictions. I took the voluntary arrangement as it came to me, and gave effect to it. I have no doubt that Mr. McDonald was present in Court on the 3rd December, 1886, but I think Kemp made the application for No. 14 ; but Mr. McDonald may have done so. Kemp was certainly present, and I know he made the application on the Ist December, 1886." In reply to Henare Apatari witness stated, " There was no objection to No. 14 being awarded to Kemp. I was not present when the tribe selected Kemp as owner of No. 14. I was in Court. Kemp brought No. 14 before the Court. He claimed it, and asked to have it awarded to him. He claimed it on account of having done so much for his people in connection with this land. He said his people consented to his having it. He said nothing about his ancestral rights to it. There was nothing said about Kemp being entitled to it by occupation. No. 14 came before us as part of the voluntary scheme for partition of the whole block." In reply to Mr. Beddard witness stated, "I never heard of any dispute about No. 14 until after the Court at Wanganui. I made the final order for No. 9to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, 1886. We never awarded No. 14 to them. The order for No. 14 is dated the 3rd December, 1886. If Nicholson made any objection to No. 14 it must have been a general objection, as I am satisfied that we never made any delineation of No. 14 for the descendants of Te Whatanui. There never was any intention to give the descendants of Te Whatanui No. 14. When Kemp asked for No. 14 he asked for it for himself." In reply to Mr. Stafford witness stated, "It is quite possible that an order may have been verbally made for 1,200 acres on the 25th November, 1886, but it was not finally made, and Lewis then removed it from the Court. He could not have done so if the order had been valid. He could only have done so subject to the order, which would have been an absurdity. As a matter of fact no such order had been made. The order made on the 25th November, 1886, did not relate to No. 14." The Commissioners, in commenting on Judge Wilson's evidence, remark, " Mr. Wilson, a Judge of the Native Land Court, who presided at a Court in 1886 when this block was subdivided, and who gave very positive evidence as to what occurred before him in 1886, is, we think, undoubtedly wrong in his recollection. We refer to Mr. Wilson's evidence especially, because he is above suspicion ; and it is a striking instance of the difficulty, nay, almost impossibility, of

23— G. 2a.

GK—2a

178

arriving at the truth in connection with the history of the block. Mr. Wilson's evidence, given before us, shows that a piece of land (subsequently forming part of what is now Subdivision 14) was set aside for Kemp to hold absolutely, and in his own right, and that the piece of land was the last one which was cut out of the block. The evidence of Mr. McDonald and other witnesses is to the effect that—and we have no doubt their evidence is correct —Subdivision 14 was not cut off for Kemp absolutely, and that it was not the last, but the third section that was cut out; and this is corroborated by an inspection of the plan which was before the Court in 1886, on which the subdivision is distinctly marked No. 3, and the alteration from 3t014 is shown. That plan and the evidence also shows that Subdivision 14 as now existing—which, according to Mr. Wilson's recollection, is Kemp's private property —was not marked off until after the Court of 1886, when it was marked off owing to a deficiency in area of another block." The Commissioners then go on to remark, with reference to the telegraphic correspondence which took place between Judge Wilson and the Under-Secretary, Native Affairs, in 1890, that they think Mr. Wilson's memory is playing him false; but, as they do not explain on what point they consider he is mistaken, it is not possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to whether or not it refers to the statement that " Major Kemp appeared and acted for the tribe throughout in a fiduciary capacity; that an apparent, but only apparent, exception was Lot 10, of 800 acres, awarded to Kemp for himself only " ; but it does inferentially, if the statement that Mr. Wilson's memory is playing him false refers to his evidence relative to No. 14 being cut out for Kemp absolutely, compared with the statement contained in the telegram that Kemp acted in a fiduciary capacity throughout, excepting as regards Lot 10, of 800 acres, awarded to Kemp for himself only. It is certainly a very inexplicit and inapplicable reply to the Under-Secretary's message, but it is hardly evidence of Mr. Wilson's memory playing him false, nor does it appear to bear upon the point the Commissioners evidently had in their minds when commenting on it. The following extract from the evidence given by Judge Wilson before the Native Appellate Court explains his view of the matter : " The conductor of a case was usually called a spokesman. Kemp was also a principal, but his position before us was that of a trustee. There was nothing unusual in Kemp appearing in a fiduciary capacity. It was the proper course. No one else could act." It will be seen by the foregoing extracts that Judge Wilson misemployed the term when he stated that " Kemp appeared and acted for the tribe throughout in a ' fiduciary capacity.' " Touching the other part of Judge Wilson's evidence commented on by the Commissioners, i.e. the part referring to the setting-apart of No. 14, there is no doubt that the evidence given relative to Nos. 3, 9, and 14 is very confused, especially the mixing of 3 and 9 ; but, irrespective of the confusion of numbers and the order in which these sections were set apart, the assertion made by Judge Wilson that No. 14 was set aside for Kemp to hold absolutely in his own right is not to be discredited because of the apparent confusion. The statement that No. 14 was the last section dealt with is correct, notwithstanding it was one of the three sections before the Court on the 25th November. The discrediting of Judge Wilson's testimony on the evidence given by Mr. McDonald and other witnesses is not justifiable in the face of the statement which appears a little earlier in the report relative to the non -reliability of the evidence, especially of the Native witnesses ; and if their evidence is eliminated there is only Mr. McDonald's left, which the Commissioners have also commented on as being unsatisfactory. The following evidence was given by Neville Nicholson (Te Aohau) before the Boyal Commission relative to the position held by Major Kemp prior to the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block in 1886, and the position that he was placed in by that subdivision, as explained by the Assessor to the Natives in Court. The following questions were put: By Mr. Stevens : With regard to Block 11, were you in the Court when that block was cut off from the main block ? —Yes. Do you know what position the titles stood in for the whole of the Horowhenua before that subdivision was made ?—Yes. What position did Kemp occupy at that time ?—He was the caretaker for his people. We, the Ngatiraukawa, were under the impression that Kemp and Kawana were the caretakers of it for the people. That was after the trouble of 1874. We were taken to Wellington by Sir Donald McLean, and then we found out that Kemp alone was the caretaker, and not Kawana. You say that Kemp was the kaitiaki for the whole of the Horowhenua Block before that subdivision was made ? —Yes. . . . Did the Assessor explain the difference between the title given by the Court then and the former title of 1873? —The Assessor said, " You must recollect that from 1873 to this time Kemp was the caretaker of the whole land, but now the land is divided into different parts amongst the tribe, and that has done away with the former title." That is, the Assessor explained to the Natives present that the former trust had ceased to exist with regard to No. 11 ?—The Assessor went through the different subdivisions and explained the whole matter, so that they would understand that Kemp's former position had come to an and. Who was the Assessor?—Kahui Kararehe. It has been stated that a kind of fiduciary interest in land was vested sometimes in a chief for the benefit of others, but such an idea looks very much like the result of European suggestions, and is inconsistent with the habits of the people. As a matter of fact the position known to Europeans as held by the sovereign, as parens patriae, or guardian over various classes of persons, and the trustee of the kingdom, never existed amongst the Natives. The supposition that a chief held the position of trustee is on a par with the idea that he possessed manorial rights and other positions in regard to the land totally incompatible with his actual status in the tribe. As regards the plan which the Commissioners relied on in support of their opinion that Judge Wilson was in error about No. 14, it is evidently the supplementary plan which is referred to, as plan W.D. 508 was the plan in use by the Court, and on that No. 14, as dealt with by the Court, was to the east of the railway ; and, as regards the subsequent marking-off of part of the section to the west of the railway, the Chief Justice has decided that it was competent for the Court to make the required alteration.

179

G.—2a

The meaning Judge Wilson attached to the term " fiduciary capacity," as used by him in the telegram to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, in the following phrase, "Kemp appeared, and acted for the tribe throughout in a fiduciary capacity," is explained by him as follows : " There was no telegramjsubmitted to me by the Commissioners during the hearing of the Horowhenua Block by the Commission. I received a telegram from the Under-Secretary of Justice, a short wire. ... It related to a dispute about No. 11, as to whether there was a trust or not. ... I telegraphed that Kemp held No. 11 in a fiduciary capacity. I said there was only one block in which Kemp had not acted in that capacity. No. 14 was not in dispute at that time. I did not consider that the telegram referred to it. It was not in my mind. I think the Commissioners should have asked me about the telegram if they attached any importance to it, because it may have appeared inconsistent, and I could have explained any inconsistency away. I have no knowledge whether the telegram commented on by the Commissioners had been proved in evidence. The telegram was written about No. 11 only; No. 14 was not in my mind. It was Kemp's own land, and I had no idea that there could be any dispute about it. . ... McDonald asked that Kemp should appear as agent, but I decided that he was spokesman and trustee for his people. He only could place the proposed partition before us. It is a fact that Kemp asked, by or through McDonald, to appear as a trustee for the people. . . . The telegram of the UnderSecretary to me referred to No. 11 only; anything else I said was gratuitous." Shortly stated, Judge Wilson's evidence before the Native Appellate Court relative to setting apart No. 14 for Kemp is as follows: "No. 14 is correctly marked No. 14 on the plan; it was so marked when I had done with it. I know nothing of any previous number on it." Beferring to the entry in the minute-book, Vol. 7, page 200, Judge Wilson explained that it referred to the order for No. 14, for Major Kemp himself cannot account for the word " confirmation " being used, but thinks the clerk took it from the interpreter. Major Kemp probably used the word " whakatuturu," and the interpreter rendered it " confirmed." " Was specially careful to challenge in No. 14, because I was then under the impression that No. 10 was for Kemp also. I say again that No. 14 was for Kemp himself. I remember giving evidence before the Boyal Commission on this point. I reaffirm the reply I gave then. In reply to Mr. McDonald, Judge Wilson said, "I repeat that No. 14 was awarded to Kemp for himself, after an award had been made to him for the descendants of Te Whatanui. No. 14 was not awarded in my Court to Ngatiraukawa. From memory I say that I never made an order for any part of No. 14 vesting it in Kemp for the Ngatiraukawa. No. 14 did not cross the railway until after the survey. The order finally made to Kemp for No. 14 was confined to the eastward of the railway. I did not make any order to Kemp on the 25th November, 1886, for the portion of what is now known as No. 14, east of the railway, for the purpose of its being conveyed to the Ngatiraukawa. It was spoken of in Court, but no order was made until after No. 10 was dealt with. We were told in Court that part of what is now No. 14 had been offered to the descendants of Te Whatanui outside of the Court, and that they had refused it. . . . Kemp said in Court that he had offered the land that afterwards became No. 14 to the Ngatiraukawa, and that they refused it. After No. 10 was disposed of Kemp applied to the Court to award No. 14 to him in accordance with their agreement. Objectors were challenged. There is no minute of this." In reply to Mr. Stevens witness stated that "the award of No. 14 to Kemp was part of the voluntary arrangement. No. 14 was not a gift to Kemp ;it fell to his share. The 800 acres given to Kemp was allotted to him for a purpose; it was different with the 1,200 acres (No. 14) —that was for him personally. . . . No. 14 was spoken of to the Court as being for Te Whatanui's descendants, but it was never awarded to them. I cannot remember how far the offer to. give No. 14 to descendants of Te Whatanui went, but I know we never awarded No. 14 to them. As regards No. 3, anything we did on the 25th November lapsed. I can swear that we did not award it to the Whatanui. . . . There was an abortive attempt to put No. 14 through for the descendants of Te Whatanui, but it failed, notwithstanding what appears in the minutes. The orders for the two 1,200-acre sections were not made to Kemp so that the Whatanuis might have the choice of which section they would take. No. 14 was not handed to Kemp for the descendants of Te Whatanui. They never had a vested right in that block. ... lam firmly convinced there was no order on the 25th November, 1886, for No. 3 over the section now known as 14. . . . There was no delineation on the plan of No. 14 until the order was made for it. I do not know how to explain it, but I know that No. 14 was never awarded to Kemp for descendants of Te Whatanui. No. 14 was not delineated on the plan on the 25th November, 1886 —I do not think so. No. 14 was delineated on the plan on the 3rd December, 1886, when it was awarded to Kemp for himself alone. This was some days after the 1,200 acres was awarded him for the descendants of Te Whatanui. I am not prepared to swear that No. 3 was not No. 14, but that is my recollection—that it was not. . The boundaries were not defined on that day (25th November, 1886). The application for Major Kemp on the 3rd December, 1886, for confirmation of that order, &c, does not refer to any of the orders or anything that was done on the 25th November, 1886." In reply to Mr. Baldwin witness stated, "The Court was perfectly satisfied that there was a voluntary arrangement. . . . If an order was made for 1,200 acres where No. 14 now is on the 25th November, 1886, it was not an effective order. The -Ngatiraukawa objected to it, or it probably would have been awarded to them as No. 3. It was afterwards awarded to Kemp for himself. ... I think Kemp said in making the application that he was entitled to the 1,200 acres for what he had done, or something to that effect. At any rate, he asked the Court to award it to him for himself, and objectors were challenged before the orders were made I have no doubt that Mr. McDonald was present in Court on the 3rd December, 1886, but I think Kemp made the application for No. 14, but McDonald may have done so. Kemp was certainly present, and I know he made the application on the Ist December, 1886."

G.—2a

180

The witness, in reply to Henare Apatari, stated, "There was no objection to No. 14ibeing awarded to Kemp. . . . No. 14 came before us as part of the voluntary scheme for partition of the block." In reply to Mr. McDonald witness stated, " I have never heard of any dispute about No. 14 until after the Court at Whanganui. I made the final order for No. 9 to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, 1886. We never awarded No. 14 to them. . . . The order for No. 14 is dated the 3rd December, 1886. There never was any intention to give the descendants of Te Whatanui No. 14. When Kemp asked for No. 14 he asked for it for himself." Witness stated in reply to Mr. Stafford, "It is quite possible that an order may have been verbally made for 1,200 acres on the 25th November, 1886, but it was not finally made, and Mr. Lewis then removed it from the Court. He could not have done so if the order had been valid. He could only have done so subject to the order, which would have been an absurdity. As a matter of fact no such order had ever been made. The order made on the 25th November, 1886, did not relate to No. 14." The alleged inconsistencies in Judge Wilson's evidence which have been animadverted on are : (a.) The telegrams sent to the Under-Secretary in connection with the Horowhenua Block, — i.e., that the telegrams were sent in 1895 and not in 1890. (b.) That No. 9 was the section before the Court on the 25th November, 1886. (c) That the proceedings at the Court which sat on the 25th November, 1886, were abortive, (d.) That it was while the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui was an undefined claim that Mr. Lewis removed it from the Court's jurisdiction, and probably while the Court was not sitting, (c.) That No. 14 was awarded to Kemp absolutely. (/.) That No. 14 was not No. 3 as delineated on the plan. It will be convenient to remark on the several matters referred to seriatim :— (a.) Judge Wilson is evidently under a misapprehension about the date of the telegram sent in reply to the one received from the Under-Secretary relative to No. 11, Horowhenua, as the telegram was sent in 1890 and not in 1895. There was no occasion to send a telegram of the kind in 1895, as there was no trouble imminent then, but there was in 1890, as the question of trust had been raised in the Native Land Court, and was subsequently taken before the Supreme Court in 1894. The only question that was pending in 1895 was the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. (b.) It is evidently a mistake that the section which ultimately became No. 9 was before the Court on the 25th November, as the section that was located near Lake Horowhenua and numbered No. 9 on the Ist December was not thought of until between that date and the Ist December, and in fact the section which now bears that number was not laid off until the afternoon of that day. (c.) Judge Wilson asserts that he treated the proceedings of the Court of the 25th November as abortive, and the Supreme Court, in reply to a question submitted by the Native Appellate Court pointing out the apparent irregularity in the proceedings, has decided that the competence of the Court on the occasion referred to is not a matter for inquiry, the opinion evidently being that it was immaterial. (d.) This in all probability is a correct account of what actually took place—that the question of locality for the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Te Whatanui was finally decided during interval which happened between the 25th November and the Ist December. (c.) The reason for contesting this statement appears to be based on what is alleged to be an apparent inconsistency between the reiterated statements made by Judge Wilson that No. 14 was awarded to Kemp absolutely and the statement contained in the telegram sent by him in reply to the one received from the Under-Secretary relative to the question raised about Horowhenua No. 11, that the only block Kemp did not act in fiduciary capacity for was No. 10. This is a palpable misconstruction of the meaning of this statement. What Judge Wilson stated was that Major Kemp appeared and acted for the tribe throughout in a " fiduciary capacity," the only apparent exception being for Lot 10. The statement in itself is meaningless, and what was probably meant was that Kemp acted as agent or spokesman for the tribe. The fiduciary capacity he was clothed with under the certificate of 1873 was set aside by the subdivision of 1886, and he would require to be rehabilitated with that authority before he could again act in that capacity. The Supreme Court decided, on a question referred to it by the Appellate Court dealing, inter alia, with this phase of the question, as regards Kemp's former fiduciary capacity becoming revived under certain circumstances, that the land may be deemed to have effectively vested in Kemp, notwithstanding the matter mentioned, if the Native Appellate Court is satisfied of the intent of the Native Land Court in making the order. (/".) Judge Wilson appears to be under a misapprehension about No. 3 and No. 14, as there can be no doubt that the parcel of land at Ohau which was numbered 3 on the 25th November became No. 14 on the 3rd December. No. 3 and No. 9 are not identical. As Judge Wilson's telegram to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department has been frequently referred to, it has been deemed advisable to give the full text of it, so that its actual purport may be clearly understood: — Judge Wilson, Native Land Court, Gisborne. 24th May, 1890. (Confidential. No. 273.) —Referring to the Horowhenua subdivision case recently before Judge Trimble at Palmerston, it is asserted by Major Kemp that there was an understanding on the part of the Natives when the block was before you for subdivision that the portion known as Horowhenua No. 11, containing 14,975 acres, awarded to Kemp and Hunia, was to be held by them in trust for the Muaupoko. The matter appears likely to lead to lawsuit, and ther trouble. Minister will be obliged if you can kindly inform him whether, so far as you are aware, there was any such understanding in the minds of the Natives when before your Court, or whether the land was intended to be owned by Kemp and Hunia simply. By his recent decision Judge Trimble has divided the land into shares of equal value between the two chiefs named. I believe Kemp has applied for a rehearing of the partition, and he is also in communication with lawyers with a view of bringing the matter before the Supreme Court. T. W. Lewis, Under-Secretary.

181

a.— 2a

T. W. Lewis, Esq., Under-Secretary, Native Office, Wellington. Gisborne, 24th May, 1890. Your wire, re Horowhenua partition : I am unable to answer your question here, but will wire you again re the matter after I have consulted my notes at Auckland. T. W. Lewis, Esq., Under-Secretary, Native Office, Wellington. 27th May, 1890. Horowhenua partition : There was a large attendance of Natives interested when this block was subdivided. Major Kemp appeared and acted for the tribe throughout in a fiduciary capacity. An apparent exception, but only apparent, was Lot 10, 800 acres, awarded to Kemp for himself only; but this was done to enable him to recoup certain expenses incurred in respeot to the block for which, as I understood, he had rendered himself personally liable. Lot 11, 15,207 acres, was placed in the names of Major Kemp and Warena Hakeke, I believe, for the rest of the tribe. Objectors were challenged ; none appeared. J. A. Wilson, Judge. An attempt has been made to attach some importance to the telegram sent by Judge Wilson to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, asking whether he was aware that an understanding existed on the part of the Natives that No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena Hunia in trust for the Muaupoko or for themselves alone, to the effect that Kemp appeared and acted for the tribe throughout in a fiduciary capacity, except as regards Lot 10, containing 800 acres, awarded to Kemp for himself—that the nature of the said reply indicated that a trust existed in respect of all the subdivisions except Lot 10. It will be found, if this telegram is read in an unbiassed manner, that it contains no such indication, and that, so far as the words "fiduciary capacity" are concerned, these words have no applicability, and cannot be construed to mean that a trust was created in respect of any of the subdivisions, as it does not signify in what capacity Kemp acted in the Court of 1886. The question is, What was actually effectuated by the Court at that sitting? It is submitted that the statement that Kemp acted in a fiduciary capacity cannot attach any more importance to the proceedings than it would if the message had stated that Mr. A. McDonald appeared and acted as agent on the occasion, as that is practically what it means. The term has been erroneously employed, probably through the fact that Kemp occupied a " fiduciary capacity " under the certificate of 1873, a position which he retained until he was denuded of it by the subdivision of 1886. Under examination by Sir W. Buller before the Native Appellate Court Judge Wilson stated, with reference to the telegram referred to, "There was no telegram submitted to me by the Commissioner during the hearing of the Horowhenua Block by the Commission. I received a telegram from the Under-Secretary of Justice. It related to a dispute about No. 11, as to whether there was a trust or not. In my reply I said that I had not any notes with me. I knew at the time that my notes had been destroyed. When I reached home 1 telegraphed that Kemp held No. 11 in a fiduciary capacity. I said also that there was only one block in which Kemp had not acted in that capacity. No. 14 was not in the dispute at that time. I did not consider that the telegram referred to it. It was not in my mind. I think the Commissioners should have asked me about the telegram if they attached any importance to it, because it may have appeared inconsistent, and I could have explained the apparent inconsistency away. I have no knowledge whether the telegram commented on by the Commissioners had been proved in evidence. The telegram was written about No. 11 only. No. 14 was not in my mind. It was Kemp's own land, and I had no idea that there would be any dispute about it." Judge Wilson has given positive evidence on all occasions when under examination that No. 14 was set apart for Kemp absolutely, and that it was part of the voluntary arrangement. Before the Supreme Court in 1894 he stated that what Kemp got himself was No. 14, 1,200 acres; before the Boyal Commission he gave positive evidence that No. 14 was for Kemp absolutely, and before the Native Appellate Court he was equally sure that No. 14 had been set apart for Kemp, with the concurrence of the Muaupoko present, at Palmerston North, as part of the voluntary arrangement, and was not allotted to him to hold as an alternative section for the descendants of Te Whatanui. In reply to Mr. McDonald Judge Wilson stated, " Outsiders are much more likely to be confused than I am. They had their meetings outside as well as hearing the proceedings in the Court, whereas I only heard what took place in Court;" and in connection with this phase of the question it has to be borne in mind that Judge Wilson has not discussed the subject outside since the Court of 1886, consequently his mind was much more likely to be clear as to what was done and intended in the Court of 1886 than others who have discussed the matter on all occasions whenever an opportunity offered ; for instance, Mr. McDonald has admitted in several Courts that he was confused between what he had heard in Court and what he had heard outside. Mr. J. M. Fraser gave the following evidence before the Native Appellate Court on the 16th March, 1897, relative to the Horowhenua Block and No. 14 : "I am a Native agent, and reside at Hastings. I know Kemp, the resident Muaupoko, and the Horowhenua Block. I acted as agent for Kemp and the tribe from the sth March, 1890, to the 23rd July, 1892. I appeared in the Native Land Court at Palmerston in 1890, and also before a Committee of the House of Bepresentatives during the same year with Kemp and others of the same tribe. I continued to act as agent for Kemp until the rehearing Court sat in 1891." Witness described what took place at the meeting at Pipiriki, and stated that Kemp made no request to the people to give him No. 14. "It is absolutely incorrect that such a statement was made." Witness further stated, that from the sth day of March, 1890, until he arrived at Levin, about three weeks ago, " I have never heard any individual of the Muaupoko Tribe, or any agent of any of them, allege that No. 14 was held by Kemp on trust On no occasion was it ever suggested by any member of the Muaupoko that No. 14 was held by him in trust. Have always understood from Kemp that the land was absolutely his own property." In reply to Hamuera Karaitiana witness stated, " I repeat that I had never heard it stated that Kemp was a trustee in No. 14 until I came to Levin to attend this Court. I was present when Kemp gave his evidence at the Court of 1890. I did not hear him say that No. 14 was not his, but that he was a trustee. I have heard his evidence read during these proceedings, but the fact that

G.—2a

182

t appears in the minute-book would not make me believe it. Neither the Judge nor the Clerk understood Maori, and it is possible a mistake may have been made in the interpretation. I cannot conceive his giving such evidence, as he has always informed me that No. 14 was his own, and that he held No. 11 as trustee." The case has, unfortunately, been mixed up too much with subsequent events, in which the unfortunate quarrel between Kemp and the Hunia family has mingled too largely; but what the Court has to do for the purpose of determining the question at issue is to go back to the time of the subdivision of 1886 and view it dispassionately at that period, before any of these disturbing elements had been introduced into the matter. It has been urged that the reason why the question was referred to the Native Land Court was so that the equity of the case might be considered free from legal technicalities; but, even reviewing it from that standpoint, the Court, with a full knowledge of the rights of the people, and the relative position that Major Kemp occupied amongst the registered owners, is unable to perceive that he has been allotted a disproportionately unequal share of the block at the subdivision of 1886, as it cannot be gainsaid that he was not only entitled through ancestral right, supported by other additional claims, to a superior position amongst the bond fide owners of the Horowhenua Block, but he was also entitled to further consideration for the benefit conferred on the tribe, through the successful efforts made by himself and others on their behalf in securing a larger area of land for them than they probably would have received under other circumstances. Kemp's superior claim is admitted by even those who are the most strongly opposed to him, in proof of which the evidence of Mr. Donald Fraser before the Boyal Commission may be cited, as it is assumed, as attorney for Warena Hunia, he would be fully seized of all the facts in. connection with the relative position between his principal and Major Kemp, viewed from their standpoint, a position which had been largely discussed almost from the outset, but at any rate from 1890. Beferring to the attempt made to adjust the dispute that existed between Kemp and the Hunia family in 1891 about No. 11, when it was proposed to allot Kemp and the Hunia family 3,500 acres each out of the 15,000 acres, and the tribe 8,000 acres, Mr. Fraser stated in reply to Sir Walter Buller that, even if Kemp had been personally allotted 3,500 acres out of No. 11, notwithstanding he had received large consideration at the hands of the tribe —800 acres to pay his debt to Mr. Sievwright, the 76 acres set apart for the railway-line, and 1,200 acres at Papaitonga (No. 14), besides which he had received large sums for purchase-money and rents—that he considered, under all these circumstances, that it would have been a fair and equitable arrangement to have allotted Kemp 3,500 acres out of No. 11. This opinion, it will be observed, was expressed at a time long subsequent to the subdivision of 1886, with a full knowledge of all the facts which had taken place, whereas when the division was made in 1886 nothing had occurred to engender hostile views in the minds of the people against Kemp's superior claim for consideration over the majority of the registered owners. As regards the 800 acres given to,", Kemp by the tribe to pay his debts, Mr. Fraser stated that he did not think the 800 acres should be taken into account, because that was a voluntary gift to Kemp from the whole of the tribe who had any interest in it. This opinion about the 800 acres appears to be the general one —that it was a voluntary gift to Kemp. That being the acknowledged position, therefore, the question arises : If it is now contended that Kemp was not intended to be the beneficial owner of No. 14, what part of the subdivision was he supposed to get for his personal share ? as, although he and Warena were appointed the ostensible owners of No. 11, it is out of the question to suppose that it could have been reasonably considered at the time that they were to be the sole owners of so large a portion of the block to the prejudice.of the rights of the resident Muaupoko. This idea only developed itself at a later stage, after being fanned into life by the same process that obtained in other parts of the colony in respect of blocks of land allotted to ten persons. The ten grantees fully believed in the first place that they held the land in trust on behalf of themselves and the other owners, until it was dinned into them by interested persons that they could dispose of the land as their own ; this soon led to the land being sold, and all but the ten grantees being despoiled of their tribal estate. In support of the statement that Kemp was mainly instrumental in obtaining an increased area for the Muaupoko, the following evidence was given by Major Kemp before the Court in 1890 on the subject, describing the action he took in ultimately fixing the southern boundary of the block at Waiwiri: " I proposed a certain boundary extending from thence to the mountains, but Ngatiraukawa objected. I said the boundaries should be shifted to Mahoenui on the southward and Ngatokorua on the northward. I wanted to expel the Ngatiraukawa. I afterwards removed the boundary to Waiwiri. I sent Hoani Puhi to fix a pole. There was no dispute about the boundary after the Court sat." The boundary at Mahoenui referred to by Major Kemp was the same boundary included in the application made to the Native Land Court in 1872 by some of the Muaupoko (Te Bangirurupuni and others), commencing at the coast at Bakauhamama, thence to Mahoenui, and thence to the Tararua Bange to Waiopehu. Had the boundary first proposed by Kemp been accepted by the Ngatiraukawa it would have made a difference of over 17,000 acres in the area of the Horowhenua Block. The Muaupoko, therefore, are the gainers to that extent. The rights of the Ngatiraukawa up to the boundary at Mahoenui were also recognised by the Government in the arrangement made with them in 1874 by Sir Donald McLean, at the final adjustment of the disputes between them and the Muaupoko, and the final extinguishment of all their claims to the tract of country between the present southern boundary of the Horowhenua Block and the boundary Kemp proposed to fix between them and the Muaupoko, before he shifted the boundary to Waiwiri.

183

G.—2a

The reason why the Ngatiraukawa would not accept the boundary at Mahoenui which Kemp proposed was owing to their claiming a boundary much further to the northward—viz., from Te Uimairangi, on the coast, thence to Tau-a-te-ruru, near the Horowhenua Lake, and from thence to the Tararua Bange, which only left about one-third of the block for the Muaupoko. Before the Native Appellate Court on the sth May, 1897, Meiha Keepa, in opening his case in respect of the rights of the parties claiming a proprietary right in No. 11, stated, inter alia, " I have also occupied the land, and have been as brave as my ancestors, in that I have rescued part of the land. My claim from chieftainship and conquest is shown by my having extended the boundaries of the land from Hokio to Waiwiri by my exertions in the Native Land Court." The dispute, which started in 1869, about the ownership of the Horowhenua Block, between the Ngatiraukawa and the Muaupoko, was referred to the arbitration of a number of tribes in 1870. The members of the tribes chosen for that purpose assembled at Horowhenua and awarded the Muaupoko a block of land of about half the area of that finally allotted by the Native Land Court in 1873. This award would have been accepted by the Muaupoko, but Kemp refused to abide by the decision, and afterwards shifted the boundary southward to Mahoenui, and ultimately to Waiwiri, the southern boundary of the Horowhenua Block finally fixed by the Court in 1873. The meeting of the tribes was convened during Kemp's absence on the East Coast by Kawana Hunia, who had previously caused a large house, called " Kupe," after the ancester of Muaupoko, to be erected for their reception. The boundary fixed by the meeting was at Hokio, but this was not agreed to by Ngatiraukawa, as they claimed a boundary further northward, at a place called Tau-a-te-ruru, the boundary said to have been fixed between Te Whatanui and Taueke about the time the peace was made, when Te Whatanui promised his protection to Muaupoko. The Ngatiraukawa, although not satisfied with the boundary fixed by the Committee, decided to leave the question to be decided by Pomare, one of the lineal decendants of Te Whatanui. He fixed the boundary to the south of Kupe, a short distance to the southward of Tau-a-te-ruru; but the Muaupoko objected to this position, and Kemp afterwards, as previously stated, shifted it to Waiwiri, the present southern boundary of the Horowhenua Block. This action was the means of about doubling the area of the Horowhenua Block. The Court is aware that Wirihana Hunia prefers a similar claim on behalf of his late father, Kawana Hunia—that he was the means of aiding the recovery of part of the Horowhenua Block by contesting the Ngatiraukawa claim to the land ; but that claim will be considered later on, when dealing with No. 11. Without in any way detracting from the importance of the assistance rendered by others in the matter, it cannot be gainsaid but that Kemp was mainly instrumental in regaining a very large proportion of the Horowhenua Block for the Muaupoko. No one had the personal influence or could command the same amount of assistance as he could amongst the tribes who were willing to aid the Muaupoko, if necessary, in regaining their land. He found the remnant of the tribe in a very unsatisfactory position. As a people they had been conquered by Te Bauparaha and his allies, and afterwards succoured by Te Whatanui, but had never regained their independence as a tribe. Kemp, by his energy and determination, re-established his people, and, considering all the circumstances, he is entitled to very great consideration for the incalculable benefit he has gained for the Muaupoko in recovering for them so large a portion of their original tribal estate (fully 25,000 acres), as well as enabling them to regain their tribal status. It has been stated that one reason why it was deemed necessary to cause an inquiry to be held into the matters relating to the Horowhenua Block was that a great injustice had been done to the Natives; but, whoever may have been injured by anything that has been done, it is certainly not the Muaupoko. The Native Appellate Court, having submitted certain questions to the Supreme Court, is bound by the decision of that Court in terms of section 92 of "The Native Land Court Act, 1894," and will now proceed to make its findings, subject thereto so far as may be necessary ; but before doing so it is advisable to make further comments on certain matters in connection with the case. The term "alternative section" so frequently used by Mr. A. McDonald is a misnomer. There was no alternative section made, in the proper acceptation of the term. What really happened was this : A section of land comprising 1,200 acres was set apart for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and ordered in favour of Major Kemp on the 25th November, 1886. This section was objected to by Aohau Nicholson on the same day, and subsequently documentary evidence was received by Mr. Lewis, the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, who was assisting Major Kemp, in which it was stipulated that the 1,200 acres should be located near Lake Horowhenua. The purpose being fulfilled, and the section accepted by the descendants of Te Whatanui, who were present at the Court, the section of 1,200 acres at Ohau was vacated, No. 9 having been substituted in lieu of it. It will be seen, therefore, that an alternative section was not laid off as stated, but that one section was substituted for another; and if the Court did not create an alternative section the numerous statements subsequently made by irresponsible persons that in their opinion it was one, are of no avail. The following evidence is pertinent to the case now under consideration :— Mr. Alexander McDonald, on being examined by Mr. Travers before the Waste Lands Committee of the House of Bepresentatives on the 13th December, 1887, relative to the petition of the Wellington and Manawatu Eailway Company, gave the following evidence relative to the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block in 1886 (vide Parliamentary Paper 1.-sa, Session 2, 1887): "Do you know the Horowhenua Block ?—Yes. Did you take any part in the passing of those blocks through the Native Land Court ?—I had something to do with the subdivision. With what view was that subdivision of the Horowhenua Block carried out ?—I understood it was subdivided for the purpose of making it possible to sell. The people were precluded from selling previous to subdivision ; and it was probably also to enable them to get their titles and deal with the land. Then the subdivision was to enable them partly to sell and partly to individualise their titles?

G.—2a

184

—Yes. Have you any idea of the extent of Kemp's interest in the block on subdivision ?—He got three blocks in his own name alone, one of 4,000 acres, one of 1,200 acres, and one of 800 acres, and he got a share in a block of 16,000 acres with Warena Hunia, a son of the late Kawana Hunia. Then he and Kemp had 16,000 acres, independently of the original block ?—Yes. Had Kemp any interest in any other block ?—No. He had a share in the 16,000 acres. Can you say of your own knowledge whether any of the Native owners, when the subdivision orders were made, were prepared to sell ?—Yes, a good many of them. Did they offer them ? —They offered them at the time the land was passing through the Court, but there was the proclamation on the land, which prevented them from selling. Was Kemp desirous of selling ?—I heard of him offering only the 4,000-acre piece. Others of the Natives were prepared to sell? —Yes. Can you say whether Kemp had entered into negotiations with the Government for the sale of the land in anticipation of it passing through the Court ? —At the same interview at which Kemp agreed to apply to the Court he offered 4,000 acres for sale to the Government." It will be observed by the tenor of the foregoing questions that the object of putting them was to elicit information on behalf of the Wellington and Manawatu Eailway Company —who considered they had a grievance against the Government for not affording them facilities to acquire the Horowhenua Block—as to how much land would have been available for purchase had no obstacle been placed in the was' of acquiring it. It will also be perceived that the questions put to Mr. McDonald as to what area Kemp possessed in the block were specific, and that the nature of the replies went to show that Kemp possessed, besides a share in the 16,000-acre block (otherwise No. 11), three other blocks which he could dispose of, comprising respectively 4,000 acres, 1,200 acres, and 800 acres, but that he only desired, as far as it was known, to sell the 4,000 acres. It will also be noted that this evidence was given by Mr. McDonald in December, 1887, a twelvemonth after the land passed the Court, while the matter was fresh in his mind, and that it is entirely opposed to the theory of the alternative selection. The Court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the following matters happened in the Court of 1886 in connection with the setting-apart of No. 14 : (a.) That a block of 1,200 acres was dealt with by the Court on the 25th November, 1886, and an order directed to issue in favour of Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for the descendants of Te Whatanui. The division dealt with on that date was then numbered 3. That the descendants of Te Whatanui present at Palmerston North, to the knowledge of the registered owners, refused to accept the 1,200 acres at Ohau numbered 3. (b.) That it is conclusively proved that the block dealt with on the Ist December was No. 9, and was made as a final allotment to Kemp, as trustee for the descendants of Te Whatanui, and not as an alternative allotment in order to allow the descendants of Te Whatanui to choose between No. 9 and No. 3 (ultimately numbered 14). (c.) That Mr. Lewis, the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, was present at the Court when No. 9 was set apart, on the Ist December, for the descendants of Te Whatanui, but it is immaterial whether as representative of the Government he did or did not accept the aforesaid section on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui, as the position of the 1,200 acres was fixed by the agreement of 1874, and so long as the terms of the said agreement were complied with further action was unnecessary; but, notwithstanding that, Judge Wilson has stated that both Major Kemp and Mr. Lewis told him on the Ist December, 1886, that No. 9 had been accepted by the descendants of Te Whatanui. (d.) That the 1,200 acres set apart at Ohau, and numbered 3, on the 25th November, 1886, which was then intended for the descendants of Te Whatanui, but was refused by them, became afterwards vacant and unappropriated, until it was again dealt with by the Court on the 3rd December, 1886. That the order of the 25th November was only a minute for an order; that no order was drawn up in relation to No. 3 after it became No. 14, which is either dated on the 25th November or made to relate back to that date by way of confirmation or otherwise. That the registered owners having decided on the Ist December that Subdivision 9, comprising 1,200 acres, was to be allotted to the descendants of Te Whatanui in satisfaction of the agreement of 1874, it follows as a matter of course that on the 3rd day of December there could have been no intention to create or confirm a trust in respect of Subdivision No. 14 in favour of such descendants. After due consideration of all the circumstances, the Court is of opinion that the Native Land Court in 1886, in making its order on the 3rd December in favour of Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for Section 14, fully intended to vest the said section in him as sole beneficial owner. That, having carefully weighed all the evidence, the Court is of opinion that Judge Wilson's testimony relative to the setting-apart of Section 14 in favour of Major Kemp untrammelled with any trust or other obligation is indisputable, and that the Court in making its order proceeded upon a determination that the registered owners had agreed to such appropriation.

Approximate Cost of Paper.—Preparation, not given; printing (1,440 copies), £103 16s.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB9B.

Price 3s.]