More Info →30 June 1870

Description

Thursday June 30^th

Court sat 10 am.

Present – same judge and assessors.

Paraparaumu – continued

Mr. Swainson on behalf of claimants tendered a copy of a plan of a survey made by him in 1853 showing 4 detached blocks

No. 1 containing a2 – r2 – p28 No. 2 containing a2 – r3 – p22

No. 3 contaning a1 – r2 – p12 No. 4 containing a2 – r0 – p17

Mr. Swainson stated that he had reason to believe that this claim is disputed by the persons alleged to have given the land and that those persons are not present. Asks for an interlocutory order for a certificate in favor of claimants.

G. F. Swainson – Sworn.

Am a licensed surveyor under Native Land Act. Live at Rangtikei. The plan befor the court is a copy of a plan of a survey made by me in the year 1853. I was then a surveyor in the government service and I was instructed by Sir George Grey in writing to survey this land. I was instructed to go to the land with Mr. McLean who was land purchase commissioner. I came and made the survey. I went over the boundaries with Mr. McLean. They were pointed out to us by Rawiri Tangiwera and Piripi Puhau as being the boundaries of the land they were willing to give to the claimants. The land was under cultivation at the time and the boundaries of the pieces claimed were the ‘taupa’s. Jenkins – the father of the claimants had been living on No. 3 and was then living at Wharemauku on the beach near Waikanae. He had a cowshed and unfinished house on the block. The boundaries were marked out by pega and some of them were standing when Major Edwards and I were there in 1862. In 1862 I accompanied Major Edwards by direction of the government as a surveyor. We were sent to endeavor to arrange with the natives who had consented to give the land and afterwards refused to allow Jenkins to occupy. The natives repudiated the previous arrangement on the ground that Jenkins had married an English woman. From that time to the present it has been a dispute and I believe the claimant were advised by the government to bring their case before the Native Land Court.

Objectors challenged.

Oriuia Hurumutu – appeared and stated that she would oppose the claim if it was intended to give Jenkins the father of the claimants, any interest but not otherwise.

Mr. Swainson stated that he was not prepared to prove the ownership of the land by the alleged givers nor the fact of the gift further than the fact of the boundaries having been pointed out by Rawiri and Piripi who are dead.

The judge said that under the circumstances stated by Mr. Swainson, the court did not feel justified in proceeding with the case. The description of the land in the application was not sufficient to identify the land and it appeared that the evidence required to establish the claim was not forthcoming.

The court would therefore dismiss the case and direct the claimants to send in a fresh application in which the land should be properly described.

Hautaua – Horomona Paro and others

Adjourned case.

Case called – No appearance.

Dismissed.

Pahianui No. 6 – Pahau Te Manuka

Adjourned case.

Case called – No appearance – (Claimant dead)

Claim dismissed.

Mangahanene – Hemi Kupa and others

Adjourned case.

Case called.

Hemi Kupa – appeared.

(Certified plan produced – S. O. W 217 – Swainson – a6 – r1 – p18)

Claimant sworn.

Lives at Katihiku of Ngatihuia and Ngatituranga ‘hapus of Ngatiraukawa. The plan before the court shows the land I claim. The persons interested with me are (as in list A)

(A)

Mangahanene

Parties claiming together with Hemi Kupa as given by Hemi Kupa in evidence:

A.B 1 – Hemi Kupa B 2-Parakaia Te Pouepa

B 4 - Aperahama Te Ruru A 5 – Te Rau

A 6 – Te Popo A 7 – Taia Rupuha

A 8 – Rakapa Kahoki A 3 – Karanama Te Kapukai

(signed) – Hemi Kupa A – Ngatihuia B – Ngatituranga

We have not arranged yet about grantees. We claim this land as belonging to the ‘hapu’s Ngatituranga and Ngatihuia. There was a ‘pa’ there formerly. It was the Otaki ‘pa’. The ‘pa’ were all Ngatiraukawa were assembles. This was the ‘pa’ built by Ngatiraukawa when they came from the north after the fighting was over after Te Kuititanga. The hapu’s of Ngatiraukawa dispersed to various places and left Otaki to the two hapu’s named. When the other ‘hapu’s went these ‘hapu’s remained and occupied this land and are still occupying it.

The judge said that the claimant had not made out a prima facie case but if any of the numerous counter claimants wished to be heard the court would hear them.

Tamihana Te Rauparaha appeared and stated that he was a claimant that this land formed a portion of a large block claimed by him.

Court adjourned at 12.45 pm.

Court resumed at 2 pm.

Mangahanene – continued

Parakaia Te Pouepa – appeared as a counter claimant of the west portion of Mangahanene a3 – r2 – p0 Sworn.

Lives at Otaki of Ngatihuia and Ngatituranga, Ngatiraukawa. I claim the west portion of this block a3 – r2 – p0 as belonging to myself and many others. I put in a list of 3 persons interested with me (B).

(B)

Mangahanene

Names of parties claiming together with Parakaia Te Pouepa to part of Mangahanene.

1. Parakaia Te Pouepa 2. Ihakara Tukumaru 3. Hemi Kupa

Grantees nominated by Parakaia Te Pouepa

1. Parakaia Te Pouepa 2. Ihakara Tukumaru 3. Hemi Kupa

Objectors challenged.

Ihakara Tukumaru appeared and stated that he did not agree to have Hemi Kupa’s name in the list of grantees. When we (Ngatiraukawa) came from the north we occupied this land on both sides of Otaki river near the mouth. Two years after ‘katupu te pakanga ka hanga te pa Otaki’. It stood partly on the land claimed and partly outside down to the river side. There was fighting with Ngatiawa. Haowhenua. ‘Ka mutu te pakanga ka pakaru nga tangata ki Manawatu ki Rangitikei’. Ngatiraukawa were 4 years there. 2 years after returned but not to this ‘pa but occupied other places round about. 3 years after the return it was rebuilt by the tribe in the same place, before it was quite finished the kuititanga took place. Then the place was left and the fences were taken away to Rangiuru ‘katahi ka kore te mahara a te iwi ki taua wahi’. After this, Ngatiraukawa again dispersed, some ‘hapu’s went away and some staid. Ngatituranga and Ngatihuia, Ngatipare, Ngati Kauhat remained. Ngatihuia and Ngatituranga, Ngati mai Otaki i waiho hei tiaki i tenei wahi. After this a ferry was established at Otaki. Tamihana arranged for a lease. Hukiki and Tamihana and Te Matenga let the land, 20 acres , which included the land now the subject of investigation. It was let to Dr. Featherstone on the part of the government. I had nothing to do with the arrangement at the time. After this we went to ‘rohe ki te wahi i pai ai ratou hei retinga mo to ratou reti’. The rent was stopped for 2 years at our instances. 2 years rent was given to us and £40 was given to me and to Nepia and after this ‘ka hoki te tikanga ki nga tangata nana te reti. 3 years ‘ka pau i te Waipuke te whare i noho ai te pakeha’. Another house was built by the ‘pakeha’ on another portion of the 20 acres. This was built by Ngatihuia – Tamihana’s people. After this I took the ‘pakeha’ and put him on the site of the present house. I then went to Wellington to Featherstone and said, “As the ‘pakeha is on my piece, let the lease be mine”. Featherstone refused but said “Let the first lease expire and then there can be a new lease from you but you can arrange with Hukiki to let you have the rent one year and they another”. Hukiki assented to this arrangement but we did not get the rent for 3 years. The 4^th year ‘ka tutu ahau kia homai ano te £20 o tera tau’, and ‘ka homai whakauaua mai’ and another year I got £5 from Tamihana and Matene. The dispute has continued and is the reason why the land has been brought into the court because the rent is being received and kept by Tamihana. The lease is still in force. I don’t know how many years it has to run. During the 4 years following our arrival here, the land claimed by me was occupied by my ‘hapu’ Patukohuru and Ngati mai Otaki. I claim the ownership in virtue of the 4 years occupation and of the ‘tiakanga’ of Ngatihuia and Ngatituranga. We quarreled about the proposal to lease the land in 1852 and in 1857 (I suppose) the lease was arranged. When the ‘pa’ was rebuilt just before the kuititanga we returned to the same places which we had previously occupied. During the dispute about the lease Ngatihuia and I became opponents. They went and laid off boundaries on the land claimed and I pulled up their pegs, Hukiki was of Ngatihuia and Matenga also. The place where the first house of the ferry stood was on Hukiki’s piece. I am sure that the portion claimed by me is the site occupied by us, my ‘hapu’ and Ihakara’s and was the place we returned to when the ‘pa’ was built the second time.

Objectors challenged.

Moroati Kiharoa – appeared.

Stated that the lease of the 20 acres had been effected by ‘te iwi katoa’ and that ‘te iwi katoa’ shared the proceeds. Objected to certificate being ordered. Was interested in portion of the land included in the lease.

Hoani Taipua – appeared.

Was interested in the 3 acres claimed by Parakaia and others. Objected to certificate being ordered. The lease was by all the tribe.

The court decided to refuse the certificate applied for.

Fees for Hemi Kupa £1 for Parakaia £1

Court adjourned at 4.30 pm.

Identification