17

G.— 4

Ruatahuna Block. (Appeals Nos. 102 to 116, inclusive—fifteen appeals in all.) Appeal No. 102. —By Puru Rawinia and others. Appeal No. 103. —By Te Mapu te Pukeiotu and others. Appeal No. 113.—8y Te Rahui Hoera. Appeal No. 116.- -By Tawai Tukumaru and others. These four appeals were withdrawn on behalf of the appellants—No. 102, by Te Wharepouri te Amo, on behalf of his mother, the appellant, Puru Rawinia, on the Ist February, 1907; Nos. 103 and 113 on the 4th February, 1907; and No. 116 on the 4th February, 1907, there being no objectors. We recommend that these four appeals be dismissed accordingly. Appeals Nos. 105 and 106. —8y Te Whenuanui and others. Appeal No. 107. —By Mahaki Tapiki and others. Appeal No. 109. —8y Hori Wharerangi and others. Appeal No. 110. —By Mapu (te Pukeiotu) and others. Appeal No. 111. —By Erueti Tamaikoha and others. Appeal No. 112. —8y Te Iriwhiro te Wiremu and others. These seven appeals ask for increase of shares, and the increases asked for in each case have been discussed and settled by mutual arrangement between the owners, and agreed to by them before this Commission without objection. We have therefore prepared and attached to the file of Ruatahuna Block a list of the names of these persons, 180 in number, showing the increased shares agreed upon, and we recommend that their interests be so increased. Under Appeal No. 107 it was further asked that five additional persons be included in the order. No objection has been made to the inclusion of these persons; we have therefore added their five names, numbered from 885 to 889, inclusive, to the list attached to the file, with individual shares as shown therein, and recommend that they be added to the order accordingly. Appeal No. 108. —By Te Rahui Hoera, claiming the inclusion of the name of Rere Rahui, f., six years, for an interest of five shares, there being no objectors. We have added this name, numbered 890, to the list attached to the file, and we recommend that it be added to the order for the five shares asked. Appeal No. llJ f . —By Puihi Marutawhao and others, claiming the inclusion of forty-nine additional persons in the portion of Ruatahuna Block named Te Waiiti. This was agreed to by the owners; we have therefore added their forty-nine names, numbered from 891 to 939, inclusive, to the list attached to the file, with shares as therein shown, for inclusion in the Te Waiiti piece only, and we recommend that they be so included accordingly. Appeal No. 101,.. —By Te Rauna Pakaha and others, for the inclusion of twenty-seven additional persons in the portion of Ruatahuna Block named Whakahau, for the relative interests contained in the list of their names submitted by the appellants to this Commission. This same claim was made by Te Rauna Pakaha before the previous Commission, and was then opposed by Te Kauru te Kanapu. The Commissioners, after hearing the case, gave a decision (vide Book 6, p. 262) including the names of six heads of families, selected from amongst these persons, in the land with interests of one share each. The names of Te Rauna Pakaha and his party do not, however, appear in the order, and we are unable to discover why they have been omitted therefrom. We have considered this case, and we find that the evidence of Te Whenuanui, Hori Wharerangi, and Paitini Tapeka, given at the previous Commission (vide Book 6, page 161) supports this claim. We are of opinion that the claim on behalf of these twenty-seven persons should be upheld, and their names and shares included in the order as for the Whakahau portion only of the Ruatahuna Block. We have therefore inserted their names, numbered from 940 to 966, inclusive, in the list attached to the file/with shares as therein shown, and we recommend that they be included in the order accordingly as for the Whakahau piece only. Appeal No. 115. —8y Mehaka Tokopounamu and others, for the inclusion of the names of ten additional persons in the order for this land. This case was also set up before the previous Commission and inquired into by them, and the claim was dismissed. We have duly considered this case as submitted to us, together with the evidence advanced by the witnesses in "support of the same claim at the time of the previous Commission, and we find that they now advance a new claim—by ancestry —in addition to the claim by gift which alone was set up by them at the former hearing. We are at a loss to understand how—if the ancestral right of Ngati Tawhaki now alleged by them is correct —Tuiringa of Ngai te Riu could possibly have made a gift to them (Ngati Tawhaki) of this their own ancestral land. Moreover, the evidence submitted by them to this Commission is entirely at variance in many important particulars from that submitted by them to the previous Commission. They at that time stated that the alleged gift of this land was made by Tuiringa to Te Puehu, Ruru, and Ngati Tawhaki, for assistance rendered by them in avenging the defeat of Ngai te Riu at Kauae, when they (Ngati Tawhaki) defeated Ngati Whare at Arikirau. At this present Commission they state that the gift was made by Tuiringa to Te Puehu and Ngati Tawhaki in payment for the blood of Ngati Tawhaki, who fell at Mangatepa in a fight which took place about the wife of Ruru.

3—G. 4.