NATIVE LAND COURT, ALEX ANDRIA.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2323, 31 May 1887, Page 3

NATIVE LAND COURT, ALEX ANDRIA.

Decision of the Court

The following is the full text of ;the judgment of the court recently 'delivered at Alexandra l>y Judge Mair :4— ' The name of this block is Manuaitu-Aotea It contains 8342 acres, more ov leas, 032' acres being situated on the north side o Aotea Halrbour,,aiid lolftacres on thesi>utl side. The whole, of the block, as shown 01 the map, is claimed by the Tainui une Ngatiwhakamarurangi hapus. The claim, set up To Manihcra Poiuvharettipi on ([behalf of tho claimants...Ngatiwhakn and Ngatituirirangip- for tin ■- Whirle ! 'Slock are* 1 : Ist, ancestry ; 2nd, gjft and 3rd, permanent occupation. Tin ancestor set up by him is Turongo, atu from him to Tuirirangi, and down througl the eight generations that followed to Foil wham 1 himself. The ' second ground , o clajni is an alleged gift by Rawaho and iTi lifngi Potiki to Irohunga and Ruinui, do scendants of WhaUamaiurangi, Counter claims, were raised, Ist, by Wironn Nero Te Awaitaia, of Ngatinuihanga aw Ngatihourua, for the entire " blocl by right of conquest and constan ..... .burning ; of his , fires. : i 2nd, Bi ' I 'Wiremu ,Te : Wheoro, of Ngatinaho who claiTrts all that portion of the blijcl lying west and north of Rauiri, Manuai ; tii and Otuatine, as far as Te Motau, by con quest of tho people of Whaingaroa an< * , ,is -r to say, Ngatituirirangi ?(? Ngatimotemote nini Ngatikoata. He also claims by Idnj occupation. 3rdi by Hapeta Waaka on be half of Ngatirnahiiriga, Ngatihourua, am another hapu called by him Ngatiwhare A'X whole .block by • ancestryi jfron right ;of conquest: and" con V""' slant occupation. . 4th, by Pumipi Hapi mana on behalf of Ngatitewehi and Ngati kqyrfi,. tp; ,two portions, : viz : one on tli &idsof »Koreromaiw&ho and Manuaitu the other on the south-east of. Rekereke n [Heringi, .Otuatini, and Te Matau. 1 Hi . i clainjs by coriquest ov6r Ngatituirirangi ... Ngatiteariari, Ngatimotemote,; Ngatikoata *i .Ngafiwhfingaparaua,' ' who wen driven from Whaingaroa,. Aotea ane Kawhia, and also by long occupation. sth .-;r<by--Te Rawhiti Paturrt on behalf of Ngati , naho, Ngatihourua, Ngatitnahanga, am *:; Ngatiha'un, who claims a portion on thi ; ; north (Side of the 1 block at the Torepari ■ j ~Btr(;ami also• Herangi and other place; named by him by conquest and constan occupation... oth, by Te Poutu Mouhaeri for. s JtiHe Patupo, 'Niratitewehi, Ngati reko, Ngatimahuta, Ngatikahuone, Ngati uakau, Ngatimataran, and Ngati raparapa. He. claims ..all that piece oh the south side of Aotea Harbour, and the eastern' half of the other portion that is to say, from Rauiri te Koreroffiaiwaho, Te Tuahii, Te Reke reke, Herangi,. Ohiatini, and from thence to the Pak'Oka stream by conquest anc constant occupation. 7th. By Ahipcm Ivaihau, on behalf of Ngatiteata. • claims a place called Maukutea, on the . south of the harbour, by ancestry, con: , quest and _ constant occupation. Bth. Bj Hemi; Matini T e Awaitaia, who claims all of the land north of the Rekereke o| Muriwhenua, Herangi, and from thence te Te Matau through tho ancestors Paratai, Tuirjrirangi Tiki Orereata, (who marriec Mahanpra),' and also by conquest over-hij 'own ancestors. 9th. By To Heruika, win places his claim under that,of the claim ant'srai;it appeared in the Gazette. 10th, By Wiremu Te Whitu, on behalf of Ngati .haua And some other hapus mentioned bj him. He could not, however, give tht boundaries, and left that to his witnesses to supply. He claims by conquest anc occupation. 11th. By Hoterene Te Rangi hokaia on behalf, of Ngatituaia, Ngati parekino and many other hapus, sixteen in all, who sets up precisely the sam< claims as Poutu Mouhaene (No. C. The court having seen that the claims o tlie counter-claimants were scattered al over the block, and that some of their were ' identical, recommended them t< amalgamate where they could possibly do so The result was that the counter-claims wen reduced to .four, as follows :—l. TeWiremi Te Awaitaia. 2. Hapeta Waaka with thi claims of, Te Rawhiti Patara, Hem Matini Te Awaitaia, and some of Ti Rangiho Okaia's hapu, These two case were on behalf of the same people. Neitlie of the leaders would agree to unite foreasons of their own. 3. Was Wiremu T( Whitu's case; 4. Wiremu Te Wheoro, in eluding the elajms of Pumipi Hapimana Ahipene Kaihaii, and the remainder of T< Rangihokaia's hapu. The investigatior occupied 47 days; the evidence brought for ward in each case oeing very voluminoui and generally of a very conflicting nature as'the claims..of ...Wiremu -Nero, Hapet.Waaka, Wiremu Te Wh,itu ■ and ; iWiremi Te Wheoro are alike, excepting a slight difference in the boundaries. The court wil review 'them as though they formed om claim only. The, grounds set up by th< counter-claimants are, first, their aiicien feuds with the Aotea aud Whaingarni people, which became a source of strife, alsi with the inhabitants of this block, yiz. Ngatituirirangi, Ngatiwhanga, Ngati moteinote, and other hapus of the Tainu tribe, and that these quarrels extendec to-' the people of Kawhia, viz. Ngatitoa, and > the other : hapus unde Te Rauparaha who were completely crushed : a't Te Kakara, Te Arawi, anc Whepnapo,., antj "that', such of thorn whr escaped from tl]ose fights owed their pre servation to oertain chiefs, who, by virtue of their conquest, brought them away nomi nally' as slaves,.and located them on theii own lan'ds; and 'that 'the Ngatikoato anc Ngatikore, who formerly lived at Whai ngaroa, were conducted by Te Punatoto anc Taiawa back to that place, and reinstated jr| theif rights. Ngati ipoteujot'e, ai)(|i Ngatituirirangi (the origi i}al people of were safely broughf out froin Wl]ennapq fa % jVJurivyhenua. who gqndticted thein to his own land. ai Matigaohla, where they abode for a considerable time. Then, afterwards, about the'time Of the fall of Matakitaki, these captives were led by him into the Aotea country, and located at Te Kakawa, Maraerua, and Turakawa, from whence they ~were . expelledby: Te Moke, 'Te Ehupeepi, and other chiefs of the Potupon, and.that they finally, took up their quarters' at Ruapuke, north of this block,, iyhere 1 thfey reiuaineJ undisturbed owin'g; to Muriwhfenua's connection with Ngatimahanga and Ngatihourua, When Ruapuke was sold in 185G, the suryivors of these people migrat.ee} to Kapiti, where rrjariy oi t'h'eiil djeStyr Abb.qt year IS7Q, one of thein, named Kawharii, returned, .became a supporter of the king, and is now living at Aotea. Te Whareroa and Te Rewene Te Hoho took up their quarters at Makaka after the sale of Ruapuke, and joined the Ngatinaho, to whom they are "related. They havg lived there for ma-.y&rfe.fi's,,. bqt'r jjava hot ui>qnirec| • any' l itlle ' fcho *land. fhe ivai's that' ledTto She conquest, began with "the murder, of :Wiri, a .Waikato woman. To Waitapu'Was killec} on the westete'poiftoi oS.tfheTblock, £ijd his people 4ed ! ;"ithbn followed the %ht I'O *K&h-3Jlririi ww partially allotted by,thQ.conqUeroVs. Next Rangipotiki was surprised'at Tahuri on the southern side of the block,,the survivors 'of his hapu taking refjige at Kawhia, and now the land was doiripletelj''- abandoned ■'to the conqucrors, who," a|fer the'M of - iVJafeikitekij act'uillyjook possOsSioij and divided It, and have remained irf ofceupation to tho tJi'esent'time.; ' They "claim to have many burial-places, which, with "the sites of:their churches, may be seen j ako,"cult|vajiions, 'rt.ith the; pas they once occupiecj,.arid that, they sold certain portions to the first European settlers and the Wesleyan Mission. • The counter-claimants further state that this land formerly belonged to Ijgatituirii;atigi, Ngati w,h an ga, and Ngatiaiotein6te,_ and that; their chiefs, Te Waitapu, Morii,' and Rangipotiki, were killed on the block; also,. that the first surveys-of % land were Vna'dii by themSfiM' W °PPfsition . from the claimants, '-ahd- th.at.thb location of the pake ha trader • 'Maiafcotako, was clonfl \vifh their'jotAt'consent Tliey'. further declare that (io hnoestral title existed after the connuest was effected:;!that no gift $ook plaffe tc Irohanga and Riunui, there being no family connection, between them and Rangipotiki and ftawaho ; that/as'for Muriwhenua, he took no the'donqaest, and therefore ".mana"!iriior over the- conquered i'ouht'rjKijiSoirie'! of{'the oounter-cTairnantf also tate that!the share of the oqMvtered country that fell: ■ I'igAtiuiahanga ' and the'' ! portion extending Ifrom ' Wihaingkroa t0 the Toreparu stream, as shown by -tho northern boundary oi this bio'ektm They tylsa fchaV'Pkre. faheke apd jWharifei, Te-Kehii'^'' w'iveis, &ave'' Hepuika': la l piece of land called Rahinui, which he and Te Waaka Dccnpiecf'"lSTgatTwKare."The j state that the claimants have he old bgrjal 'places on this block; but that ago, ; the remains of somo o thefr dead who had been buried at Ruapuke ivere within the

block. They, moreover, declare that rionc of the Tainui or Ngatituirirangi ever lived oi) this land after the conquest untilj at j Tawhiao's request, the Kupapns came t< *: ! Aotea to be near him, and then Wharelau and Whavara' settled at Ranrao. Kaupre where thoy have no ancestral mana, tliei; proper place of abode being Whaiiigaroa; Tin fcburiter:claimants further say that jthi conquest was incomplete at the deatlj o Morii, Waitapu and Rangipotiki,.aud tjha it-was not Accomplished till the'fall of; Ti Arawi_, To Kakara, and Whenuapou, a Kavvhia. In reply, the claimants * stati that the fights at Whaingaroa and Aotea spoken of by the counter-claimants, wen simply acts ; oft retaliation before'a per manent peace . was made, . and tha lio laud was taken or oqeupiec by the so - called conquerors. T)ia' all-' these affairs 1 had no reference i t< the' acquisition of land. They fnrthei aver that the original people were not al destroyed, inasmuch as the two" pass a Orongohekc and Owhakarito were still oqcu pied by them up to and after the genera peace-making at To Arowi with the fac ! that Muruwhenua brought away some! ol tljose. very people from Whenuapo anc established them at Aotea. This is sup ported by- the,fact that Te Kata, father o Te Awaitaia and Te Uira both led wai parties against Orongoheke and Owhaka ,rito. That Te Waitapu's death' was dul] avenged by the people of Aotea anc .Whaingaroa, but that this occurred'.very long ago. Morii and Rangipottki were killed a long time after Waitapu, having been surprised and murdered at nigjit Their deaths were also avenged in due tim< without the loss of any land. They als< state, admitting these fights, that tliej could have 110 connection with the land in asmuch as the ."mana " ,of these lands liac passed into other hands before they tojol place, namely into the hands of Iroharigs and Ruiuui, ,and. from them by gift it< MnriwheiiHa, in consideration of the pari taken by the two former chiefs in avenginp t|ie : death of' Rangipotiki. < Muriwhenm afterwards returned t'vvo : one pi: the south side of the Waiau stream and the other on. the north- of Papaknraka and Otiuj to the original people of Aotea. Ir this way the ancestral " mana''was, pre served. The "portion of land sitiiateCl'tje tween these two is still held by Muriwhenur by act of gift from his ancestors. It was ii: this way the Ngatiwhakamarurangi ac quired a title over the land on ;th.e mortl: side of the block; that is, from Waiau tc Rekerekp, thence to Puketutu: and that ,it has been occupied by Muriwhenua and h'is brothers, together with the original people and by their descendants down to the present time, and that he set up certain stoiie marks, called Ngatuturu, at the source ol the Waiau stream and another stone called Bou-a-karewa at the source of the Puketutu stream, to indicate the boundaries. The claimants also state that the hapus of the counter-claimants did not occupy this land after the fights already described up to ind after Matakitaki. But when the Europeans came to trade at Kawhia, Potatau and his people of Waikato went there to barter llax for powder, and guns. After a time, Potatau sent them back to Waikato, and none of them occupied any part of this block. Some long time after this again, when the missionaries were established _at Raoraokauere, the Revi Mr Simile being minister, the Ngatitewehi and Ngatipatupo carjio over, to that place to atiend the services ; that Is to say, they came periodically from their proper homes on the aast side of Aotea for that purpose, Christianity was very popular at that time; lience it was the natives gathered near the jhurches. During the Waikato war some of them, having 110 claim to the land, returned to Waikato. After the mission was ibandoned, the Ngatitewehi and Ngatipatupo also ceased to live there; and in ISG7, after the Waikato war, the former people attempted a survey of the land, but ivere stopped by Te Whareroa, who appeared at the court, held at Raglan to protest against the claims of those people. Since then no further attempt to survey the jloclc has been made. The claimants also -tate that soon after the war some Waikato lapus went over and settled amongst the •esident people of tl}e plage, went to Kawhia and pothers tq J.both sides of Aotea larbour. These people had.no title to the land, but came over in order to be near the fishing stations. In 1880 they removed entirely from the N. portion of the block. Soon afterwards, Te Rangihokaia went over ;o Raoraokauere to live, but was turned off. There was also a man of these people living it Te Pahi j but Jl9 hfid 1)0 claim, and. was believed to be insane. The claimants further state that they alone really occupied this land, and are now the owners of - the houses, fences and cultivations formerly possessed by these other people ; and, more)ver, that Ngatipatupo, with the other hapus iving on the S. side had no title but were iriven there by fear, of the European troops. The.first ..interments by Ngatitewehi and Ngatipatupo took place on this land dining :ho time of the mission. That Hemi Wera .vas the only member of Ngatinaho living ivith them at Taranaki. Me came from: the E. side of tl}e harbour, and being related to the. claimants was permitted to 'ive with them :-but |]g had no maim and jould not.deal with the land.- The claiinui'ts further declare that the sales of portions of this block to the Europeans,ar,d to ■he Government and amo fchq gift of Moutakotako to Hone te One, were effected \y them "alone, and' that 'it was through ;hem certain lands were given to the Missionaries. Som.e of the chiefs "of Ngatitewehi and Ngatipatupo who took part in 'he handing over the piece of land at Harurunui to the Wesleyan Mission, did so jy sufferance, for they had no real, claim to

GiiG lanci, ana in tnose days irregular , negociations of that sort were frequent. For instance, Tir.ua, with no claim to the lfindj'! took pait in" the "transfer above stated, whilst the real 'njaity vested with Kerapa Kiprq, and Ngatihouyxja t.oQk part in the sale of Ruapuke it was beaauae they had become possessed of a piece there called Te . Horo, which was given them by Hohepa Te Poria tor their use and -occupation, The claimants also stato they are the only tribes who occupied this land before the advent of Christianity, and down to the present' time. •They claim to be owners of the churches, cemeteries, and all other o,Btah}\ahed landmarks ; and ajone po&e'ssijcT tli'o' priwer to leaso to Ji/uropfeahs fylotakotako and Raoraokausre ; that Mm-iwhenua and" Te Poria gave to Te Heruika &' pjeee of land called Rahinui £qh his ' sole ' lise and after him to his son Herh'ka;'who afterwards transferrer mana 6f- V«at piece to Te \yhar^-.i)fv i ajifl so that'none of i{£,ru)i;a''H hapus have any -right or interest therein; also that Ngat'iwhare, represented by Hapeta, Waaka, Parihi v a'hd TitipOj jnado their first appearance at Te Makaka in 18G7; but that Hapeta returned to Whatawhata two ybaya later, whilst the other two their-'families rel m'ainsfl. the 'Consent of Ngatiwhaka-' marura'ngl, at Makaka, but without-any title. Pouwhare also denies positively the statements of the counte' , to the i effect that r ; c r»nd bin * people . occupy by, right of coifrtliest j .only h'e clhiina■ ftO- mana over this/ larid th<mjs tyf with »or does -he-re'--present tbosQ bapns in the constant occupation of the soil. The : claitnants deny'that Miiriwhonua was driven from" plafie ; 'to place, but when the iSfgatipatupo were macfe,aware that' he claimed j.a "mana'.'in Aotea, ttiej then Jevidd war i against him' an'c]' attacked.' him at Matapoporo and Tauranga, but were defeated ; that a peace was afterwards made between him and Te .J-hutu,' since which no further quarrel' has has taken place. The Court has considered all the evidence placed before it. In the first place, the question arises, was tjiia land belonging to 'Ngatimoteipote, ' and' tlie other hapus of the coast conquered by thy Waikatos after the fights at Whainj>;iroa, Aritea, and Kavvhia, and the killing of Waitapu, Ea,ugipotiki, and? did they oocupy'aiid hold it down totho present time; arid has the mana of the former inhabitants been swept away by the conquerorst Secondly.:- Ia it true that th js land 'was given by Rangipotiki !\nd Rawaho to Irohanga, Tjuinti/,' and Miiriwhenua, they possess " mana" over ft tip eo the'time of the ICakara antT then did .Muriwhenua yciniisafce the original inhabitants, rfid.iiave tfcpy occupied the Uu the* pfeSen'fc"ljime? Thirdly:" Is the titld of the counter claimants baser!, on conquest, or, do they occupy iaa.d P n ,sufferance, having been cli rvcti there durlng theWaikato \yarY fourthly : Do the claimants live there through : ancestry and by gifts, or, without any valid rights ? "jt has been thought proper to go,carefully into these iy order to make as clear as pwfeiOlo the grounds of claim which have been submitted to the .Cqyjt. We have carefully inspected, f,j& ] fin d, under' investitlje special landmarks bearinjt. reterepce to the claims. The Court 'haf arrived at a conclusion ifigardlng'the merits of each-'cascs brought! before it, and is _of opinion,'" with respect to the clajma by conquest, that iio'' such claim has been established; it has not been proved, which particular

isrht completed tho conquest. Some witlasses declared that the one in which ftiorii ivas slain< affected this; others, the ions, wherein Waitapu was killed; others,Jthe. one in which Rangipotiki was kilted; whilst others state no land was taken on account of any of these fights ; some again declare that the conquest was completed by thfe jfight at',lDd Khkifrqf, \B3ho r {fci(feft<se; on bnisipojnt'is notsfttisffictoiiy. lWithiro'ference to the claims by ancestry and gift, It is admitted that this land formerly belonged to the Ngatituirirangi, Ngatimot'emote, and Ngatiwhangaparaoa. Probably tliese people were numerous in former times, Ibut during the raids made upon them before and after tho alleged gifts their numbers diminished, and their " mana " was gradually lost, for the claimants state that (the ancestralTclkifif lla'd' befefi Superseded by that of gift, arid perhaps? it 1 \Vas for this reason that they—the original people— went jbeyond their own former district to follow!Te Rauparaha to Kapiti. The few who jdidi remain, together with those brought away from YVhenuapo by Muriwhenua, settled down on the portions of land which liar] formerly.beijn occupied by f them* . Syuid of say thati''.they! took hip Itlieir quarters outside of the block ; the claimants, on the other hand, contend that they occupied more or less the whole blo;ek. Owing to the number of deaths amongst them, the dispersion of their descendants and absorption by other hapus, their numbers were no doubt reduced, and the lrfnd became vacant, and was afterwards occupied by outside tribes. The court is of opinion that the claim by gift is very weak. It would appear that soon after the date of the alleged fight (thee or four generations back) other tribes came on to the lahd' without hindrance by the parties now claiming absolutely,- through /ancestry aiid gift,' and 'settled in various places, which they have continued to occupy ; and further that they took part with the claimant in the disposal of portions of the land to Europeans. The court therefore has come to tho conclusion that the best title to tliis" land is that of occupation. We will now deal with the different cases: —1. The cafee of Wiremu Nero Te Awaitaia: Certajn hapus and individuals are alleged to haye kept the fires burning in this case, and St is claimed they belonged to the Ngatin upd.Ngatjliourua. BiSt ,tbe r »same P§SPl e thiivje t>eeri brought forwardLin Whfer cases for the same reason, while they dn their own part repudiate these clainia' altogether, and from the evidence brought forward it appears that Mahanga and Hourua were not in constant occupation of the soil. The court, therefore, is of opinion that they have no claim as a tribe, but this, will mot ibar vtheui. from proving individual claims. '2. The case of Hapeta Waaka: His evidence is very unsatisfactory, and his present claim does not agree with his survey made years ago. He alsorchanged ih.iS hapus,,^finally-claiming for Ngatiwhare. On his map, however, he mentions the Ngatihourua as being his people. _ Ilemi, his witness, brought forward this hapu, and Ngatimahanga; whilst Hapeta himself absolutely ignored them. Both of them appear to belong to Ngatiwhare. Jt in difficult therefore to determine -the merits of this case; but looking at the evidence supported by _ some of the other cases, and ""'having viewed the ground,' we think that Ngatiwhare are entitled to a certain interest on the northern side of the block, about Tahere. 3rd. The case of Wiremu Te Whitu. No particular portion :>f the Mock was claimed, and some, of the liapus-'b'rought forward-were'found to be in the other cases. It was alleged that Pirihi and his people .wore the constant -occupiers af the land, while the evidence in the other 3ases showed that he was merely a casual sojourner,; and that;he hatj discontinued his visits_fof ovpr twenty years. The court, therefore, decides there is no evidence of constant o_opupatiori,Lbufc Pirihi may be admitted with the consent of the hapus unong whom he resided. 4th. The case of VVirenurTe -Wheoro. In this- case many hapus are included, and they occupied various places on blopk. 'jhejr inter3sts, therefore, £«e divided. The court is i)f opinion thsit most of these hapus have sustained their claims by occupation. As ;o some of the boundaries given, it is doubtful whether they are boundaries of their claims or of cultivations. The mark at Papoporo was alleged pQ : tje ft boundary, Jut a similar iriiU'k ifi another place was said to bp merely the foundation of a storehouse, protected by a ditch ! The flax row, described as a boundary mark at Matupoaoro, was shown:' to-be outside- the ,'ne. Thus, the court was unable to determine the actual correctness of some >f the boundaries, applies also jO the stone niarks of th,e- claimants, 1 rvbich wo do not think are genuine, i With reference to Ahipene Kaihau's case, j 'here was no evidence in support of qocujation on the part of but he ifcates that was before Auckland'• Vas I fettled that hjs hapu returned to Manqkau, rom which time to the present vumo of his 3eople.had returned to oeuupy the land Fie stated that I'irimata had kept his ire burning, but she denied this when the Jourt questioned her on the ground. We. ;herefore find that Ngatituitq liava no j :laim in any With reference 'to the ' Ngfttitewehj survey;' madi':by direction )f Hone Waitere Reihana in 18G9, tlie lorth line is gmjits distance inside the bouniary now given in the evidence by that iapu. ihe question then ,arises, if ;Motavotako really belonged f'6 them, why was t excluded when that survey was made' rhe Court therefore decided that Ngatitevehi have no to. the portion outside ;hafc liqe. 4a regards the claims of ;he Ngatinaho they are disputed on both iides. Ihe clp.Vtiunits state that some of ■he jipqnte spoken of by Te Wheoro as Ngatinaho belong to them. The Court, jpon looking into the genealogy, finds that descendants of Naho are met with in both ;ases, and is of opinion that these people lave a claim to Jooalities occupied by ; hem, foy s» great amount of evidence has 3een brought forward to prove their occupa;ion and subsequent partial return to Waicato. The claimants, on the othe.v hand, leny the occupation by the-larger- bpdy u and ijiaintain that" a ew members' o£ that hapu, being r§ated to the resident people, did to orynr and ive there for b,ut llo,en they ,vent back tq and never- 1 retnvneci; ind iurthe,r, that iiemi Weva? the only me of their number \\4\tt Jived at Taranaki, md he diq ao, recently, having come iCTPjsS hoai the east side of the harbour. The court having weighed all the evidence, ind having; also visited the district itsdi, ;m deeided that Ngatinaho are by to a certain on the w?st side ofManuaitfl. Wits reierencie io the claims made fy Te Wheoro on behalf of the Tatupo, &c., to the south side n the block, the court is of opinion th«t ;liey have proved their .claims kyh riehfc ; o£ occupation to all Td);oclsmd Mfitb. relerence to that park at lieir. atifec.ts thg nftrih sido of the Wock th o p OU1 ,| c j dec( tlmfc the p atupo and. i tv7?/< ; i tci v'ohi, .with theri sub-hapus, are entitled to tho portions occupied by them there also, but certain of claimants, who it is lived at will Ipe- ; Emitted- ,with without preiu'dJoo to 'the larger rights of Ngalitewehi and Co. We come now to the claimants, case for the sntiro block. It appears that thesg people were the sellers to the Crovmiof. tlie Ruapuke block adjoining Aijanuaitu on the north, and it uncertain, \yhon they became resident at Te Makaku, their principal settlement on this but we are satisfied that theiy occupation is proved and that they l\to the. principal Owners of the nortii and west portion of the Manuaitu \r° C f-' 11 been proved that iN gall wh a ; in aru ira 11 gi ha.f : any claim -by -•cc'.V.mbion to the south part, though, if any or them can prove individual rights, they will be admitted. Tho following orders will be made To Poutu Moubaere, Te;i\.ua Tauiraj'and'others of the 'Patupo, Ngatitewehi, Ngatiriko, Ngatimahuta, and their sub-hapus, together with any of the descendants of the original inhabitants who may provo' • their right when the lists of names are under consideration ios all that part of the bloc!,; on the south side of Aotea havbour, which will be caUed. i^oteaiSoufcb. 2. To Te Poutu Teawa Tauira, Hoterini, Te Hone Waitere, and Te Patupo, their sub-hapus and any of tb.o descendants of the original vrho may pro.v% that they are entitled to together with Icawharu, Wharara, To Whareiaia and Powhare to portion of the block lying to the east of the lir.o, commencing Itauini in the following tHa boundary of thq Qf.iwii land to .Koreromaiwahi) T-fi ( yov,* t'o" Manuaitu, Te Rekireki, Ketouyi and along Mono Wiiitero'si survey I'ine to Paii.>ka stream, and by the shore to the commercing point, including, the islaiid. called Motutej'e, to betQalled Aotea North. 3. To Te Kewene, Te Haho, ye.yyiiarepu and the fcjiTe- Wibera and other's' of Ngatinaho and To Heruikn, Hapeta Waaka for the rest of the Wock, : which will retaui

the name of Manuaihi. As already stated, the interest of ISgatinaho is ,limited, to ftat'pprtioii of* the block west #;M|»huai(;u ! <Mand tllafc'fof Nfcatiwhani to the places called Tahene and Rahinui. These claims are not to prejudice in any way any rights of the claimants to these places; '"AH the parties wjjl have, to bear their sh'ate of the cost of ( Jh*e^surV.ey,<-aiid* no;., orders >vill issue uhtil(|i|e, Survey-tcharges"* have been paid, an^the :: 'sectiohal-''surveys ;> made;and approved>'3:, v This judgment .doesapt-affect-' the Wesleyaif' ? M:is¥ion l - Estate 'at Raorao- ■■> kauene nor the Crown purchase of.Oioroa. }• I A^e ; xandra,(MLaj7:2lstJ 1887.. • ■