Wednesday April 22nd
Court sat at 10 am.
Present – Judges (3) Assessors (2)
Himatangi – continued
Mr. Williams put in a list of names of claimants to be inserted in the certificate applied for.
Mr. Fox put in amended declaration filed in the Supreme Cort dated 27th July 1866 in the case Parakaia Te Pouepa and Ans plantiffs v J. E. Featherstone and others defendents.
Mr. Williams addressed the court.
Court adjourned at 1.30 pm.
Court sat at 2.30 pm.
Mr. Fox as counsel for the crown rose to address the court. Before commencing, he stated that he proposed to speak continuously and to give his speech, which was written to the interpreter after he had delivered it.
Mr Williams objected and submitted that the same course should be followed in the case of the address of the counsel as in his own. After some discussion the court decided that the address should be translated sentence by sentence.
The court adjourned for 10 minutes to have preparations made for a night sitting.
On resuming, Mr. Fox made an appeal to the court stating that he feared the interpreter would not be able to hold out as he was already tired and asked for an adjournment till tomorrow.
Mr. Williams objected, and after further discussion the court on finding that Mr. Young was of opinion that he would break down, offered Mr. Williams the alternative of adjourning till tomorrow or of allowing Mr. Fox to address the court as at first proposed by him leaving the interpretation till afterwards.
Mr. Williams accepted the adjournment and the court adjouned the hearing of the counsel for the crown to tomorrow at 9 am.
Court adjourned at 3.30 pm to 7 pm.
Court sat at 7 pm.
Present – Thos H. Smith, N B White – judges and same assessors.
Mr. Hughes
Mr. Williams put in a list of names of claimants to be inserted in the certificate applied for.
Mr. Fox put in amended declaration filed in the Supreme Cort dated 27th July 1866 in the case Parakaia Te Pouepa and Ans plantiffs v J. E. Featherstone and others defendents.
Mr. Williams addressed the court.
Court adjourned at 1.30 pm.
Court sat at 2.30 pm.
Mr. Fox as counsel for the crown rose to address the court. Before commencing, he stated that he proposed to speak continuously and to give his speech, which was written to the interpreter after he had delivered it.
Mr Williams objected and submitted that the same course should be followed in the case of the address of the counsel as in his own. After some discussion the court decided that the address should be translated sentence by sentence.
The court adjourned for 10 minutes to have preparations made for a night sitting.
On resuming, Mr. Fox made an appeal to the court stating that he feared the interpreter would not be able to hold out as he was already tired and asked for an adjournment till tomorrow.
Mr. Williams objected, and after further discussion the court on finding that Mr. Young was of opinion that he would break down, offered Mr. Williams the alternative of adjourning till tomorrow or of allowing Mr. Fox to address the court as at first proposed by him leaving the interpretation till afterwards.
Mr. Williams accepted the adjournment and the court adjouned the hearing of the counsel for the crown to tomorrow at 9 am.
Court adjourned at 3.30 pm to 7 pm.
Court sat at 7 pm.
Present – Thos H. Smith, N B White – judges and same assessors. TOOK STUFF TO PIPPA COARD.
Mr. Hughes produced a corrected plan of
Maringiawai No. 1
In accordance with the direction of the court (bide pp 318) (pp 692 in this book) and the court decided upon cancelling the order for certificate made on the 17th of April with respect to this claim and to make a fresh order with the area as shown upon the corrected plan.
Te Waerenga West – Natanahira Te Waro
Adjourned case from last sitting.
Plan with court.
Natanahira Te Waro – appeared.
Mr. Hughes appeared and tendered a plan of this claim certified by Mr Heale which on comparison with Mr. Knights plan of Waerenga No.1 (Perenara’s claim) certified by Mr. Jackson upon which a certificate had been ordered appeared to conflict with the last named claim.
The court decided to postpone hearing of this claim and directed Mr. Hughes to compare his survey with that of adjoining surveys and make such alterations as should be found necessary to make his plan agree with surveys of adjacent claims.
Mr. Swainson informed the court that the land comprised in this claim is included in a claim of another native who has forwarded an application for investigation.
Rina Raharuhi appeared as a counter claimant. It belongs to me and Kipihana.
Plan referred to Mr. Hughes to rectify boundaries so as to agree with survey of adjacent claim adjudicated upon.
Further hearing postponed.
Mr. Hughes stated that he had not been paid for the survey and was not prepared to go to any more trouble with the plan unless he saw his way to getting paid (see pp 335) (see pp 715 in this book).
Otaki Sections – ao – r2 – p6 – Kiharoa Mahauariki
Adjourned case from last sitting.
Kiharoa Mahauariki – appeared.
Survey by Mr. Hughes – (Plan produced).
John Hughes – Licensed surveyor – Sworn.
Produce copy of plan made by me of this claim. Employed by Kiharoa. Boundaries pointed out. It is enclosed with a fence. No interruption of survey but Ropata Hurumutu told me he claimed the land. It is a portion of the township of Otaki, Allot Nol 43 and 44. I believe this claim comprises the allotments named. I had no access to any plan of the town when I made the survey.
Kharoa Mahauariki – deposed.
Otaki. Belong to Ngatipare. The plan represents my claim. It comprises two allots of the township of Otaki. These allotments belonged to me and my brother Pineaha. No. 43 belongs to Pineaha and No. 44 to me. These allotments were assigned to us at the time of the laying out of the town. They were not occupied by us. Paraone and Wi Rape occupied them after they were turned out by Te Rauparaha. I surveyed these allots because Wi Rape returned his allot No. 43 to me. He is here to speak for himself. I did not know of the giving of No. 44 by Paraone to Ropata. Paraone’s wife and child are living. The fence now standing was put up by Ropata. I never occupied either of the allots but my “mokai’ Tarawaru occupied both before Paraone went there. He left it and went to the mill and died. The allots were unoccupied when Paraone went there. I ask for a grant in the names of myself and Pineaha and Wi Rape.
Objectors challenged.
Mihi Peka Pareturere appeared as counter claimant – Sworn.
Live at Otaki. Of Waikato. I am the widow of Paraone. I claim allot No. 44. The allot occupied by Ropata. His house is there. This allot was given to us after we were ‘pana’d by Rauparaha. Mr. Williams told us to occupy No. 44 and Wi Rape our ‘tangata’ was to have No. 43. We occupied several years and after we left on account of my health. Our house was left there and has lately been rebuilt by Ropata my relative. I apply for a grant in my own name for allot No. 44.
Wi Rape Taharunga – Sworn.
Otaki. Of Ngaitahu. I know the allot shown on the plan. I occupied one of these allots formerly No. 43. Wi Perahana gave the allot to Paraone and Paraone to me. I occupied it and Paraone occupied his No. 44 and we both built houses. I have returned my allot to Kiharoa. I hear that he proposed to put my name in the grant and I have nothing to say. I heard the evidence of Mihi Peka and it is correct.
It was ordered that a certificate of the title of Mihi Peka Parturere to Allot No. 44, Tow n of Otaki, containing r1 – p3 be made and issued to the governor.
Court to recommend restricted alienability.
It was ordered that a certificate of title of Kiharoa Mahauariki, Pineaha Mahauariki and Wirape Taharunga to Allot No. 43, Town of Otaki containing r1 – p3 be made and issued to the governor.
Court to recommend no restriction on alienability.
Fees to be paid
By Kiharoa Invest 10/- Cert 20/- C. gt 20/- Total £2 – 10 – 0
By Mihi Peka – same Total £2 – 10 – 0
Plan referred to Mr Hughes to mark off boundary between allots No. 44 and 43 on the ground and compute areas.
Court adjourned at 10 pm.
