A VALUABLE RELIC.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3720, 22 November 1927, Page 1

A VALUABLE RELIC.

OLD MAORI CANOE CUT UP FOR FIREWOOD. MAGISTRATES SEVERE COMMENTS. An unusual ease came before the Magistrate, Mr. E. C. Levey, S.M., at the Port Awanui Court, Gisborne, -last week, arising from the destruction of ai valuable Maori relic in the form of a totara canoe called Whakatataranuraire, 42 feet in length and hewn out in 1874. Some months ago the eanoe was sawn up by Kereama (Graham) Aupouri, the sbquel being a claim for £7O by the paramount chief of the Ngatirangi Tribe, Pene Heihei, who claimed ownership of the canoe. In evidence Pene Heihei said he was over 80 years of age. The canoe was his and he was claiming £7O, but the actual value of the canoe was between £2OO and £3OO. The eanoe had been lying on his land for about 20 years. Had the builder of the canoe been alive he would have given instructions to have it carved and given to one of the museums, but he had died and witness knew of one who could carve it for a museum.

It was named after the spot where the tree grew in the Wairongomai Block, in which his people had interests, all those interests havng come down to him. It had been the custom to select trees on the block for the purpose of making canoes and witness had asked one of his ancestors whether there was a suitable tree on the land for such a jpurpose. He was told that there was and he then gave instructions to have it chopped down. When this had been done, witness inspected it and then gave instructions for it to be brought out from the bush.

All the people from Reporua went with witness to trim the tree of all unnecessary limbs, but none of the people from Reporua Block, apart from himself, had -any interests in the Wlairongomai Block. With teams of bullocks and the aid of the people the canoe was taken to Reporua, where a temporary building was erected to cover it while experts were at work on it. IN TRUST FROM HIS ANCESTORS. Witness got defendant’s ancestor, Hone Tahu, to carve the canoe and others went out into the bush to get timber for the bulwarks. This old man Hone Tahu built the canoe and appointed witness to look aftef it and see that it was kept through the generations. He went out to sea in the eanoe only on fine summer days and it was large enough to hold: about 14, persons. It was never used when he was not there. On leaving that part of the district he gave instructions for it to be brought inland. About five years ago, when a church was built at Reporua, he thought it might be good to use a portion of the eanoe in the building, but the carpenters said that they could not do it. The eanoe belonged to his ancestors and the only thing the defendant’s ancestors had to do with it was the construction work. On March 13 witness heard that Graham Aupouri had sawn the canoe up but, prior to this, no one had ever interfered with witness’ right to it. After hearing that the canoe was cut up he went to the place and found the women folk sitting where the eanoe had been. He was very upset and asked who had done it. They replied that it was Graham. Graham appeared later and witness asked him why he had done it. Graham told him lie had done it because children had cut it about. It had not been made “tapu” because he was afraid for the children. Not long ago his word carried weight, and it did now, but Graham was an outlaw to Maori custom. Beirig only a young man Graham knew nothing about the building of the canoe. Tumche Homa, who gave his age as about 60 years, said that since Pone was the leader and the only surviving elder he would have had the sole right to dispose of the canoe. “CUT UP BY A RASCAL.” “Outside the Christchurch museum there is a large skeleton of a whale which is the property of the whole Dominion,” said the Magistrate, “but if you or I were to destroy it what would happen? I think this young man has done a dreadful and most wicked thing and he should have been prosecuted. This claim, however, should have been .brought-in the Native Land Court. I cannot think of punishment sufficiently severe for a man who- would do a thing of this kind. Most of us would give anything to see the canoe, and posterity will be umable to imagine what it was like. .It as

been cut up by a rascal like this for firewood. “I would very much like to deal with this young man, but this is a civil action. There is no doubt that it was corporate ownership,” he said. Mr. Kirk then applied to have the statement of claim amended to make the plaintiff a trustee for the Ngatirangi Tribe. Giving evidence, defendant said the value of ,the canoe.when he cut it up was about £lO. It had been neglected, he said, and was split from enfi 1° end. “You vandal!” said the Magistrate angrily, “what do you by cutting up such a priceless relic?” The defendant replied that he had done it because the eanoe was broken up. “Tell him I don’t believe him,” said the Magistrate to the interpreter. 5 The mother of the defendant stated that the eanoe had been broken up by the children who used it as a seesaw, causing it to split from end to end. She told her son to cut it up an'd it was now at their homes in pieces. It was to have been used by her son for some purpose. The Magistrate: “And she thinks she can destroy tribal property like that! Well, she shall be left to her chief to deal with.” “I have already expressed my opinion regarding this young man,” said the Magistrate in conclusion, and it now only is a matter of deed ling- what shall. be allowed plaintiff as the representative of the tribe. Seventy pounds seems a, lot, but in view of the evidence that the canoe was in a sufficient state of preservation to be put in a museum I do not. think it is too much. The plaintiff therefore will be allowed the full amount of the claim with full costs.” Some diseussiin took place as to what use the money should be put to, and it was eventually decided that it be paid into the Court to await further orders.