Thursday February 27th
Court resumed sitting at 10.30 am. Present, same judges and assessors. The court waited half an hour for the counsel for the crown who did not appear.
The court gave its decision in the matter of the application of the crown for an adjournment of the Manawatu Rangitikei case to Rangitikei - (A).
(A)
The court has taken into consideration the application made by the counsel on behalf of the crown for an adjournment of the hearing of these cases to Rangitikei. The grounds of the application as stated by Mr. Hart are not in our opinion sufficient to warrant the court in granting the application. It is alleged that the witnesses required by the crown decline to attend the court. This cannot be accepted by the court as a reason for adjournment. The court does not see that anything would be gained by such an adjournment that the claimants’ witnesses might and probably would have objections to attend a court at Rangitikei as well founded as any which can be alleged by the crown’s witnesses. Ample notice has been given. The alleged inconvenience of bringing witnesses appears to affect the claimants equally with the crown and the argument of the counsel for the crown that Rangitikei would be more convenient for both parties appears to be refuted by the fact that the claimants object to the adjournment and that their witnesses are present. As regards to the argument of the crown that the claims have not been sufficiently defined to enable the crown to prepare its case to meet them. The court admits this as a ground for asking for an adjournment as to time of hearing and will be prepared to grant such an adjournment as may appear necessary to enable the crown to produce its witnesses.
The court will require the claimants to define their claims by giving precise boundaries or by production of plans or the crown appearing but if after the claimants have defined their claims by giving boundaries the crown should apply for a second adjournment for the production of witnesses. The court will be prepared to grant such an adjournment.
The court refused to grant the application for adjournment to Rangitikei and stated that if on hearing the description of boundaries of the claims the crown should show cause for adjournment for a reasonable time the court would consider an application in that direction.
Mr. Hart, after decision was given, appeared and was informed of the substance of the decision and of the refusal of the court to order an adjournment.
Mr. Hart stated that he had an objection to bring forward. The claims are not such as can be referred by the governor. The claims are not those of individuals but of a number of persons. The court cannot do justice to the claimants unless the whole of the claims are before it is instructed by the commissioner not to proceed with the case.
Mr. Williams requested that the objection of the counsel for the crown be put in writing and that a translation by the interpreters of the court be furnished.
Mr. Hart agreed to this and asked for a copy of the application of the claimants and a translation by the interpreter of the court.
The application was granted.
Mr. Hart promised to furnish his objections in writing during the course of the day.
The court called on the claimants to put in a description of the boundaries claimed by them.
Mr. Williams asked for a short time to prepare descriptions of boundaries
The court adjourned till 2 pm to afford time for preparation of descriptions of boundaries.
Court resumed sitting at 2 pm.
Mr. Williams put in descriptions of boundaries of claims
1. Himatangi - Parakaia Te Pouepa
2. Kakanui - Rauriri
3. {Mangatangi} Te Ko ono Te One
{Te Awahuri Rakehou} Te Aratakana
Sketch showing boundaries of claim of Parakaia and others to Himatangi put in by Mr. Williams.
4. Sketch showing boundaries of “Kakanui” and Mangatangi put in by Mr. Williams.
5. Memo by surveyor employed to survey “Kakanui” block put in by Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams requested that the crown be called upon to put in a plan of the lands claimed by them as purchased.
The court stated that it could not all upon the crown to put in the plan referred to – Description of boundaries – read –
Mr. Hart applied for copies of the descriptions and plans and was informed that he would have access to them for the purpose of making copies.
Mr. Hart stated that he would be prepared, on Saturday next the 29th to state to the court the course he intended to pursue.
The court ordered that these cases should stand over till Saturday the 29th.
Mr. Hart put in the written statement of his objection. Translation read in court.
Tekihana I Otaki – Hoani Taipuia and Tonihi
Continued from pp 98 this book.
Tonihi stated that he was prepared to give up his claim to the land on receiving compensation from Hoani – had not arranged with Hoani.
Hoani stated that he was willing to come to an arrangement but that he was waiting for Tonihi to speak to him about it.
The court ordered the parties to confer and to appear tomorrow.
Continued pp 111 this book.
Sec 56 – 57 – 58 – 59 – 60Otaki – Matina Te Kikotuha, Tamihana Te Rauparaha
Matina Te Kikotuha appeared. Plan produced. Survey by George Frederick Swainson. Letter put in from Tamihana stating that he was ill and unable to attend the court and asking for adjournment to a future sitting. Medical certificate put in.
Tekihana 89 – 91 – 93 - Hoani Taipua
Hoani Taipua appeared. Produced plan. Sworn
Live at Otaki. Belongs to Ngatiraukawa.
I am occupying the land shown in the plan before the court. I am living in the house. They are ¼ acre allotments of the township of Otaki. Apply for a certificate in favor of self and persons named in my application (B).
(B)
Hoani Taipua, Kipa Te Matia, Paramihia Whawha
Grantees proposed by Hoani Taipua for allots 89 – 91 and 93 – Otaki.
Adopted by court – T.H.S.
No. 93 belonged to Otaki who is dead assigned to him at apportionment he is a relative. He left it to Paramihia a ‘tuahine’ of his. Te Mataunga Matia had No. 91. He left his land to me and Kipa, his grandchildren. No.89 was also his and was left to me and Kipa and his widow Paramihia.
Hoani Hemorangi appeared as a counter claimant. Sworn. I appear as an objector to Hoani’s claim. I live at Horowhenua. Muaupoko also connected with Rangitane and Ngatiapa. I claim all the land at Otaki. I claim the land as having occupied. I lived here long ago after Ngatiraukawa came here. My ancestor occupied and I did.
This is a potion of the land which I occupy. I live at Horowhenua which is a potion of the same. I claim the land but as he has divided it into sections. I know about the township of Otaki. I did not see the laying off of a township. The township is all right. If the land is outside the town it should be divided between us.
By Mr. Rogan. The Ngatiraukawa did not drive the Ngatiapa away. Otaki is a part of the land. Ngatiapa have no houses here but our ancestors had houses. At the time Ngatiraukawa came the Ngatiapa ceased to live here. I was a child when the Ngatiapa ceased to live here.
Testified by Hoani Taipua.
I was ‘mate’ and you were ‘mate’. The land did not become Ngatiraukawa’s. Ngatiraukawa have land on this coast. The Ngatiraukawa did acquire land by conquest. Otaki was taken by them. I was occupying land near Otaki and Waikanae when a child.
Court adjourned at 5.30 pm till tomorrow.
