More Info →29 June 1870

Description

Wednesday June 29^th

Court sat at 10 am.

Present – same judge and assessor

Paremata – continued

Rota Te Tahiwi appeared as counter claimant.

Claims portion of land included in survey of Paremata – Sworn.

Lives at Otaki of Ngatimai Otaki, Ngatiraukawa. I claim portion of this land. Witness describes claim as lying along the bank of Rangiuru from a bend in the Waiariki down near to Otaki river excluding Pakakuta – a ‘pa’ of Aperahama Te Ruru, Ngatihuia. The boundary runs along a valley or ‘awa awa’ which terminates at Rangiuru above Aperhama’s ‘pa’. I and my ‘hapu’ came here and occupied from the time of our ‘heke mai’ from Maungatautari. The Pakakuta ‘pa’ was built by Ngati mai Otaki. I was occupying up to the time of Haowhenua and our cultivation was where I have pointed out. It was at that time that Ngatiraukawa assembled at Otaki. After that fight we returned and cultivated the same place up to Te Kuititanga. After which we lived at Rangiuru. We left when we all came here at the building of Rangiatea (church). Te Rauparaha came and cultivated a portion of this land, planted kumara. The year of the Wairau massacre. In consequence of Te Kuititanga and Wairau, Ngatiraukawa were assembled at Rangiuru and Rauparaha cultivated on this land because it was near. It was only the state of disturbance which caused individual rights to be waived. Everybody went and cultivated where he could near the ‘pa’. I am sure that I only saw Rauparaha cultivate one year on the land. I claim hie ‘mara’ was not cultivated afterwards.

Xd by Tamihana Te Rauparaha.

It was one year. The year of Wairau that I saw Rauparaha cultivate. Have told the court the reason why we did not ‘pana’ him. I was not cultivating the spot which Te Rauparaha cultivated but other portions. I and Hopa were occupying. If it had been then as now ‘kua pana ano au i a Te Rauparaha’.

By court.

We were cultivating on another piece of same land the year Te Rauparaha cultivated.

Case for counter claimant.

Tamihana Rauparaha – in defence.

I did not see any one cultivate on this land claimed by me. Rauparaha cultivated near Waiariki before Te Kuititanga and after Haowhenua. I saw his cultivation ‘kumar’ on the portion claimed by Rota. The year of Wairau.

Xd by Rota.

Don’t know that Pakakuta was a ‘pa’ of ours and that our cultivations were there. The ‘pa’ at Pakakuta was Ngatitoa’s ‘pa’. I don’t know that your ‘hapu’ felled the bush.

By court.

I saw this land before it had been cultivated at all. It was Ngatitoa who felled the bush. the year of Tamaiharanui. Rauparaha reopened the original clearing of Ngatitoa. Rota’s people were at Rangiuru at the time when Rauparaha had his ‘mara kumara’ referred to by Rota.

The court decided that the counter claimant had so far proved his case as to show that Tamihana Rauparaha was not entitled to a certificate of title for the land claimed by him.

Certificate refused to claimant.

Rota Tahiwi counter claimant to pay £1 fee for hearing Tamihana Clt to pay £1.

The other counter claimants were called on to appear if they had surveyed their claims. None appeared.

Pekapeka – Winia Me Winia Pohotiraha

Adjourned case (from pp 691 in this book).

Claimant appeared and stated that she wished the case to be heard at a future sitting as she was not ready. Had no money to pay expenses.

Mr. Swainson stated that the land had been surveyed by him but the plan has not been certified. Had not yet sent it to inspector. Not had time.

Claimant not prepared. Claim dismissed.

Claimant to send in fresh application.

Takapuotoiroa No. 2 – Karanama Kapukai o ti and others

Adjourned case.

Claimant – Karanama appeared and stated the land had been surveyed by Mr. Knight but he was not present. Had not been summoned.

Claim dismissed – No plan.

Waerenga No. 3 – Pahau Te Manuka

Adjourned case.

Hape appeared and stated that he was a relative of the claimant who was dead.

Claim dismissed.

Harurunui – same claimant

Adjourned case.

Dismissed – claimant dead.

Ngawhakarangirangi – Mere Kaumatua

Adjourned case.

(Certified plan S. O. W – 199 Hughes before court).

Mere Kaumatua – Appeared – Sworn.

Lives at Otaki. Ngati Kauhata. I am the wife of James Smith. Identifies land. It belonged to Te Whetu my father and Te Mamutu – his ‘teina’. They are dead. I and my ‘tungane’ Tapa are the only ‘uri’ living. The boundaries are not fenced. The fence shown is Wereta’s who is a relative of mine. He was interested in the land and was present at the survey. The land was surveyed by Hughes. I showed the boundaries and saw the pegs put in. They have been knocked down by the cows but the lock spits are open. Whetu my father had a house on the land and cultivated. It was occupied before the laying off of the township and after the town was laid out. It was left but Wereta remained to ‘tiaki’ it.

Apply for a certificate in my own name.

(On appearance of Tapa the claimant stated she wished a certificate in names of both).

Objectors challenged – none appeared.

Court adjourned at 1 pm for an hour.

Court resumed at 2 pm.

G. F. Swainson – Licenced Surveyor – Sworn.

Live at Rangitikei. I know Mr. Hughes. He held a license under the Native Land Act in the year 1868. I know his signature. The signature in the map before the court is his. I don’t know the land but I think it is outside the Otaki township.

Mere Kaumatua – recalled.

Wishes the grant to be restricted that it may remain for her children.

Surveyor Hughes not paid. Charge £3. The line of road running through this land is not fenced.

Certificate ordered in favor of Mere Kaumatua and Tapa Te Whata at Otaki containing a1 – r3 – p25 called Ngawhakarangirangi.

Judge to report that it is proper to restrict alienability as in case of Native Reserves.

Court to recommend the grant be made subject to public right of road through the land as shown on plan.

Fees Hearing £1 Cert £1 C. Gt £1 Total £3

Te Rekereke – Matene Te Whiwhi

Adjourned case.

Claimant called – did not appear

(Certified plan before court – 513 - a33 – r0 – p24 copy of original plan by Hughes 514) also original plan 514.

G. F. Swainson – Sworn.

Same evidence as in last case proves signatures of J. Hughes to original plan 514.

This claim being found to conflict with “Rekereke” (68/154) the hearing was ordered to stand over till after disposal of that case.

Continued at pp 20 (at pp 751 in this book).

Sec 177 – 178 – 179 – 186 and 187 – Rei Paehua

Adjourned case.

Tiemi Ranapiri appeared and stated that the claimant was dead. Died in Auckland recently. His children and elder brother were living.

Case dismissed.

Paraparaumu – Ellen Jenkins and others

Adjourned

Mary Jenkins appeared. Stated that Mr. Swainson would conduct case for her.

G. F. Swainson – appeared on behalf of claimants.

James Townshend Edwards – Sworn.

Settler. Live at Porirua. In the latter part of 1862 I was a resident magistrate and commissioner of native reserves in this district. I was instructed in November of that year to proceed to Waikanae and in conjunction with Mr. Swainson to endeavour to get a settlement of the claim of Mr. Jenkins to certain lands at Te Uruhi near Waikanae with a view to a grant being issued by the crown. We met the natives after notice given. Waikanae natives and others residing on the land the subject of the enquiry certain boundaries were pointed out to me by the natives as the boundaries of 4 separate blocks the subject of enquiry. There were 4 pieces and containing about 10 acres in the lot. The natives admitted that the land had been given to Jenkins for his half caste children but objected to a grant being given or a resurvey saying that the children were living in a ‘pakeha’ settlement and would probably marry Europeans but if any of them would return, the land was there for them if they would live there as Maori’s. Horopapera is the only name I can recollect. I had been then only 2 months on this coast. I did not understand Maori but Mr. Cook was my interpreter and I gathered from him what I have stated.

Mr. Swainson and I sent in a joint report in which we recommended that a grant should be issued but not for the present in consequence of the disturbe state of the district. Subsequently I recommended that the case should be taken into the Native Land Court. I was directed by Sir George Grey to suggest to the claimants to bring the claim before the Native Land Court.

Court adjourned at 4 pm.

Identification