Friday 20th March 1874
Place – the same Present – the same
Weraawhango or Muhunoa
Court said that in the matter of the Weraahango or Muhunoa Block in which Hare Wirikake appeared as claimant and Roera Hukiki, Hema Te Ao and Tamehana Te Rauparaha as counter claimants, the named of the court was clear as to the judgement.
The claim of Tamehana Te Rauparaha had already been disposed of and the amalgamation claimants case with that of Roera one of the counter claimants had removed many of the penalties which at first were presented.
There was no doubt in the mind of the court as to the value of the claim of Hema Te Ao – for though Roera in his first statement said that he and his people were the only owners of the land in his cross examination he admitted that Hema had certain cultivations within the boundaries.
The decision of the court therefore is that Roera and his people have proved a claim and memorial of ownership may issue for that portion of the block lying between Peho and Mangapipi thence along the line marked out by Roera to the boundary of the Horowhenua Block.
That Block of the line fixed by the court by the last named line to the line marked out by Hema by the last named line to Te Poa thence by a line toWhareao and thence by the Ohau No. 1 block to the commencing point.
That Hema Te Ao had his people become established a claim and a memorial of ownership may issue for that portion of the block lying between Whareao and Te Poa thence by the line marked by Hema to the line fixed by the court by the last named line to the Ohau River and by that river to the commencing point –
And
That the inland portion of the Block namely that between the line fixed by the court and the mountain be equally divided by a line drawn longitudinally between Roera and his co claimants and hema and his co claimants –
And
That Nerehana and Puke having neglected to raise the question of encroachment with the close of the case must now seek consideration from Roera who to prevent future trouble may see it advantageous to admit their names.
Tauatemiromiro
Hema Te Ao said – I appear as counter claimant.
This land was my ancestors. It was given to him by Te Rurahi. Part was my ancestors and part --- and Maikara’s.
My father had the authority over the land. One of the claimants’ mothers was the wife and lived with my ancestor. My ancestor was the chief of the claimants’ party with respect to the Block. He cultivated there also my uncle and ---- claimant and his people also. My ancestor cultivated on that land for a long time – close up to the period of his death. He did not die on it.
When they went to Waikato, they left the land in charge of Hoani Maka who sold it to Jeppo Cootes.
I objected to that sale. I prevented this sale. The land had not been recently cultivated.
When they were at Waikato as stated by him, I never saw the persons come to survey the land. It is not right for people who have gone to Waikato to come back and survey land here. It should be us who remain should survey. ---- rights they have must be through us who remained.
Xed by Rutene
Do you know this land? Yes.
Do you know that I had a house? Yes. You cultivated there under the authority of my ancestor.
Who is Rurahi? A Ngati Kauwhata.
Was it Rurahi’s at time of Haowhenua and Raupatua? Rurahi was a Ngati Raukawa.
Roera Hukiki said – The land occupied by Dr. Hewson adjoined to this was mine. I have seen the claimants ------- on the land before the court. I don’t know that it has been occupied since. We are about the same age – were play fellows – relates and incident relative to this time.
Wyles
I made the survey of this land. Plan has been submitted for inspection. It has been made in accordance to the rules.
Naihi and other pointed out the boundaries. I found Mr. Knight’s line. Mr. Swainson’s peg is a fixed point. I have no idea of this encroaching on. One boundary is fenced. The line of road marked on plan is that in use.
The court decided that Hema Te Ao has not in any way proved a title – that the occupation he referred to was too far back to establish a right – that judgment would be given in favor of Rutene and co claimants – who had proved occupation at so late a period as that Roera and the claimants had been flying kites over it. No restrictions would be recommended.
Ordered that memorial of ownership be made in favor of
Te Rutene Pehiohanoa, Te Naihi Pekeia, Ngahora.
Kukutauaki or Ngakaroro
Mr. Booth said – he had been unable to arrange matters between claimants and counter claimants ---- land shown by tracing and that there seems to be no alternative but to hear the case out.
Hapi said – the claimants have been now for 7 days endeavoring to arrange their several claims of this land and now came to the court as it is utterly impossible for them to agree otherwise suggested that the chiefs and principal man of the several hapu’s should go with a member of the court on to the ground before the hearing be further proceeded with.
Hapi’s suggestion was accepted by the other parties
And
The court adjourned until Monday at 10 am to admit an inspection of the ground.
