G.-4

20

Appeal No. 127. —By Rawiri Kokau and others. This appeal was withdrawn by the appellants as not referring to Tarapounamu-Matawhero Block, and was amended and taken as applying to Te Ranga-a-Ruanuku Block, and has already been dealt with by us in our recommendations in regard to Te Ranga-a-Ruanuku Block. Appeal No. ISO. —By Atama te Kikiwa and others. Appeal No. HO. —By Mehaka Tokopounamu and others. These appeals ask for the inclusion of fifteen persons in the order, their names and shares being contained in the list attached to the file, and therein numbered from 898 to 912, inclusive. This has been agreed to by the owners. We recommend that their names and shares be added to the order accordingly. These appeals further ask that the interests of seventy-three persons in the order be increased, and, there being no objectors, we have added their names and shares to the list attached to the file, numbered respectively 128 to 139 inclusive, 159, 274 to 277 inclusive, 438 to 440 inclusive, 454 to 469 inclusive, 632 to 635 inclusive, 641 to 659 inclusive, 698 to 701 inclusive, 705, 722, 723, 745 to 750 inclusive, 839, and 871, and we recommend that they be so increased accordingly. These appeals further ask that the names of 124 persons, whom they allege have no right, be struck out of the order, this contention being opposed by Te Wharau Tapuae and Te Whetu Paerata. The appellants subsequently withdrew the names of forty-six of these persons from their list, leaving a balance of seventy-eight persons objected to by Mahaka and party. As the list of names of Te Tuhi Pihopa and his party, eighteen persons in all, has been upheld, and we find from Book 6, page 52, that Mehaka Tokopounamu at the time of the previous Commission admitted the names of the twenty-six members of Warahoe Hapu who were included in the order by that Commission, Mehaka has therefore no right now to object to the names of persons to whose inclusion he at that time agreed. This leaves a balance remaining of thirty-four persons objected to by Mehaka, all of whom were absent at other places and did not appear before this Commission, and, seeing that these persons are owners of but very small shares in the order, and that a large number of other owners have been recommended to be given increased interests, we are of opinion that Mehaka's case of objection should be disallowed, and that the names of all the persons objected to by him should remain in the order for their respective individual shares as shown therein, and we recommend accordingly. Appeal No. 13Jf. —By Mahaki Tapiki and others, asking for the inclusion of twelve persons in the order. This was agreed to, there being no objectors. We have therefore added their names, numbered from 886 to 897 inclusive, to the list attached to the file, with individual shares as therein shown, for inclusion in the order, and we recommend that they be so included accordingly. This appeal further asks that the interests of twenty-four persons in the order, Nos. 197 to 202, 206, 240 to 242, 781 to 785, and 787 to 795, be increased. There being no objectors, we have added their names and shares to the list attached to the file, and we recommend that their shares be increased to the respective amounts therein set out. Appeal No. 129. —By Te Wharepapa Atamira and others, claiming that the shares of thirtyone persons in the order be increased. The increased shares asked for thirteen of these thirty-one persons — i.e., Te Whatanui Matiu and his family—have been agreed to, but Rawiri Kokau opposed the increases asked for the remaining eighteen persons, and the cases of Te Tuhi Pihopa on behalf of the said eighteen persons, and of Rawiri Kokau objecting to the increased shares asked for them, were duly inquired into and heard by this Commission to their conclusion. During the course of the case application was made by the parties that a disputed cultivation at a place named Te Haka be inspected, and Paratene Ngata, one of the Commissioners, visited the land, and found that there were two cultivations at the place mentioned, thus bearing out the contention advanced by Te Tuhi Pihopa's case. We recommend that the eighteen persons in question be granted the increased shares set opposite their individual names respectively in the list attached to the file. Appeal No. 128. —8y Kareko Ramari and others, claiming that their shares be increased, and alleging that they are the sole owners of the portion of Tarapounamu Block named Paepaewhenua. The appellants submitted a list of names of forty-six persons as owners for this piece. This case was opposed by Mehaka Tokopounamu on the ground that these persons are not descendants of the ancestor Tawhaki, and that Awatope, the ancestor set up by them, had no right to this land. This case was inquired into and heard by us to its conclusion, and it transpires that neither the appellants nor any of the witnesses have ever been on this land at any time. Even though they appear to be from sixty to seventy years of age, none of them have ever occupied the land. We are not satisfied that their ancestor Awatope had any right to the land, and it is clear that they themselves have never occupied it. We consider that they have been fortunate in having obtained inclusion in the order under the award of the previous Commission, and we therefore recommend that their claim be disallowed and their appeal dismissed. Appeal No. 132. —8y Te Whenuanui and others. Appeal No. 133. —8y Te Uwira Aronika and others. Appeal No. 137. —By Aterea Ngahere and others. These three appeals were not dealt with, none of the appellants having appeared before this Commission at any of its sittings extending from the sth December, 1906, to the 28th March, 1907. We recommend that they be therefore dismissed.