MOHAKATINO PARININIHI JUDGMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3133, 13 August 1892, Page 2 (Supplement)

MOHAKATINO PARININIHI JUDGMENT.

_ ♦-- —■ — The following important judgment has recently been lielivered by Judge Gudgeon at Otovohanga. To those versed in Maori lore and history, particularly as regards the Waikato vribes, it will be read with more than usual interest:— This case has been hoard on the application of Kingi Takerei and others lor the definition of individual interests, under Section 42 of the Native Land Court Act, 1886, r.ud three claims have been set up, each party maintaining that they had an interest in the sixty-two thousand acres superior to that of the opposing owners. . ] Teni Rangihapainga Paraone claims that she and certain others of the owners h\ iu number) should be awarded a share equal to, at least, twice the amount of any of the remaining owners, by reaso* of their descent from, or near relationship to, a chieftaiuess of the Ngatimaniapoto named Hangihapsinea, whose minder by the Ngatitama tribe was the primary cause of the conquest of this block (which we will henceforth speak of by its Maori name of Poutama instead of the clumsy uame bestowed upon it by the Native Land Court) It is asserted that Hari, husband of the murdered woman, assisted by the three hapus-Ngatirora, Ngatiurunnmia, and Ngatikmohakunot only avenged the murder, but at Tihimanuka inflicted so severe a defeat on the offending tribe that they fled and never afterwards attempted to resume

possession of the Poutama blook. ' 2 Tawhana te Kaharoa, on behalf ot ; himself and 35 others, claims a large interest in the block for the reason that I his father, Te Kaharoa, and uncle, Tawhana, together with their immediate < relatives, were the only persons of note i who occupied the conquered territory, i such occupation extending from the year 1842 to 1869 ; and he further claims that his tribe (the Ngatirora) was the only hapu of Ngatimaniapoto who were present and took part in the two battles, Tihimanuka and Pararewa, in which last-mentioned engagement they say the strength of Ngatitama was broken and that tribe permanently driven from the Poutama block aud forced to take refuge ' among the Atiawa, of Taranaki. They 1 state, moreover, that the great chief Te . Kawairirangi was slain by Tawhana at the first battle, and in the second affair 1 the renowned warrior chief Tupoki, elder I brother of the still more famous Rapap rapa, was killed by Mama, of the Ngatirora, and claim that the loss of these great leaders it was that demoralised the Ngatitama so that they fled the land. Both of these parties to the suit agree, so far that they claim, that only the . three before-mentioned hapus of Ngatimaniapoto took part in the important engagement of Tihimanuka; but their agreement noes no further than this, for ' Teni Rangihapainga and her witnesses assert that the conquest was actually effected when Tihimanuka Pa fell into the hands of Hari and the three hapus; whereas Tawhana Te Kaharoa maintains ' that this land was not actually conquered at this period, since Te Puoho and Tupoki 5 still held the Katikatiaka Pa in ' force, and that it was not until the Ngatirora, assisted by the 1 Ngatipaoa and Njratihaua, under 1 Hanauru, met and defeated Tupoki at Paraiewa. That the remnant of the valiant Ngatitama fled from their '■ ancestral lands, and after living with the Atiawa for a time finally went south and ' joined Te Rauparaha.' leaving their land in the possesion of Ngatimaniapoto. 3. The third and last claim is that of f Kingi Takerei, on behalf of all the res maining owners in this blook. This case L i« also based on conquest and occupation. 3 The nature of the claim, as explained by 3 his evidence, is somewhat contradictory. I For instance, Kingi asks the court to i regard the conquest of Poutama as f having commenced some nine generations ago, when Eunga te Rangi. grandson of r Maniapoto, was slain by Ngatitama at r the White Cliff-, and to regard each succeeding fight as part of the same conquest. This the court cannot do, as there is every reason to bolieve that up to the time of Tihimanuka, Ngatitama were - almost invariably the victors. ' Later on in his evidence, Kingi ignores ' the foregoing, and insists that only two '. battles had any real ''roana" over the t Pontama conquest-viz., Moturoa and i Te Ruaki. The reason he assigns for this , contention is that by these two last battles » the Ngatitama were cleared completely r out of the Taranaki district, and, so far r as this land is concerned, passed out of r history. f As a natural consequence of this asser- * tion, he maintains that all the Hapus of [ Ngatimaniapoto have equal right to this J land, so far as the mere conquest is concerned. He moreover denies the state- , ment made by witnesses in the other 1 cases that only three hapus took f part in the Tihimanuka engagement, and 0 asserts that all Ngatimaniapoto took '" part therein. , _ "In addition to the above, Kingi Takerei e claims that not only the Ngatirora, but laUo all the Mokau hapu*, including Ngatiwaikorara, Ngatirakei and Ngatie mini, occupied this conquered land ; not, i- as stated in the first place, on behalf of . all the conquerors, but in their own

right. . , . Much of the evidence given by lungi had no other, aim than to inolude the Mokau hapun as having taken a leading part in the Maniapoto conquest. He says the conquest of this land was continued when the Nuatnama murdered Ngataiwbakarewakauri and Pitongatonga in the Motutawa pa, at the mouth of the Mokau River, because those children had twice stolen the choice morsels from the food presented to that tribe, and thereby brought upon themselves the vengeance of Te Wharau, who at the battle of Ngataiparirua utterly defeated Ngatitnraa, who, according to Kingi, had fonpkt the Nfratihia while the tide ebbed and flowed twice. , Those who oicaped are said to have retired to Pontama, where they built the Kawau pa, and were shortly after attacked there by the combined forces of i Wnikato and Ngatiraaoiapoto, who, says I Kingi, now began to take part in the I conquest. A battle was fought outside the pa called Opakoko, and Taugi, a. leading chief of Ngatihau. killed, and his men defeated. Then the allies attacked the pa, and as Kingi asserts, took it, Hakuturi, father of To Kawairirangi, being slain by Niwha. It is possible that Te Kawau pa was taken, but the court hears this for the first time and very much doubts the success of Waikato and Ngatiinamapoto in this affair Bince it it is a matter of history that some of the greatest chiefs of Waikato were slain at that place, for instance, Mauneatautari and Hanu, as also Pehi. Moreover it is said that Raparapa carried Te Ahiweka alive into the pa where he was despatched at leisure, this also would tend to prove that the Kawau pa was not taken. Kingi asserts that the Ngatitama, disheartened by their non-success, now grew food in order to give a feast, under cover of which they might murder their guests. When the feast was ready, Te Kawairirangi invited not the Ngatimaniapoto but Niwha and the Ngatirakei with other Mokau hapus to attend, and make a lasting peace. These people responded, but when they reached the Mohakatiho river their hearts failed them, and finally the chiefs Niwha, Ponga, and Ingoa, with about 20 followers crossed the river and were nearly all slain. After this an attempt was made toobtain revenge, but the Ngatirakei were defeated and were then glad to make peace with the redoubtable Ngatitama. For some time after this event the hostile tribes remained quiet, watching each other until in an evil moment, Te Rangipuahoaho, chief of Ngatimutunga, sent a messenger to aek Rangiha painga to visit him at the Wakarewa pa Hari consented and his wife and about £ dozen attendants started on their fata journey tho result of which has beei already told. Hari's behaviour when informed of thi murder of his wife was characteristic anc

very Maori, for he called on his tribe and marched not against the murdereis but I against the Ngatirakei, and killed Hineraugi. Te Ahi, and Pero. Unfortunately, Hinerangi was related to the Ngatirora, and when the news reached Taonui Hikaka, he said : " Mau tepo maku te awatea "—what you do by stealth I will do open! v—and straightway attacked the Ngatikinohsiku, killing Kahutotara and Te Rari. After this interchange of compliments there was but one method of avoiding civil war, and that was for all the injured tribes to combine and wipe out their injuries by defeating- Ngatitam* which was done as already shown at Tihimanuka. So tar these pages of history related by Kingi Takerei do not disclose the Mokau hapus as conquerors, but none the less he takes up a position which can only be summed up in his own words: "lam the leading chief of the Ngatimaniapoto,

and am the person entitled to manage the affairs of this land and allot the various interests." This also was the position assumed by his father, Te Rerenga, at the first hearing of the Poutama Block. Whether he was justified in assuming it is another matter. This land was brought before the Native Land Court at a time wheu a large majority of the Neatimaniapoto were staunch followers of Tawhiao, and, as such, would neither attend or acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Native Land Courts. Under these circumstances, Te Rorenga had matters entirely nnder his control, and put into the lists uf names whomsoever he pleased, rejecting those who had not found favour in his eyes. For instance, we are told that he refused to include the actual descendants of Te Rangituatea, who, as it has been clearly shown, took part in the conquest, and who was not only a noted warrior, but also a chief of rank hardly inferior to Takerei himself. The Court is of opinion that Makareta Hinewai was justified in saying that had they not attended the Waitara Court they would not have been iucluded as owners. We think this would have been the case, because there are certainly more than a hundred persons among the Ngatirora, Ngatiurunumia, and Ngatikinohaku who have been deliberately left out of the roll of owners, though there can he no question that their right to be in that roll was infinitely greater than that of Ngatikaputuhi and the other northern hapus. That Te Rerenga was alive to the probable consequences of his misdeeds is apparent to the Court, from the fact that when Teni Rangihapainga, on behalf of herself and others of the Ngitikinohaku, applied for a re-hearing, Te Rerenga, rather than face the probability of, perhaps, 200 additional names, agreed to admit the applicants, and in this manner practically settled the case outside the Court. Mr Grace asks the Court to believe that this was done in order to avoid another contest with the Ngatitama, I but this view cannot well be accepted, for most certainly since«the year 1830, aud probably since 1820, no member of

that tribe has resided on the Poutama : Block as a recognised owner ; and the ' plea set up by Ngatit»ma, that the land ; had been returned to them by Wahanui and other chiefs, is absurd, for the reason that no gift of this nature could take ( effect unless endorsed by all tha ha pus who hid acquired a right to the land by , conquest. ' , The mana of a chief over land is this and this only : If his tribe agree to adopt any course of procedure and authorise ' him to act in a certain manner, then he may speak as one having authority, but ! the ' mana' is that of the tribe who really . own the land. If, however, his tribe object to carry out the wishes of the chief in land matters, then he has no ' mana.' It cannot be too often repeated that there is no such thing as mana over land ; mana over men is quite another , affair. In this instance both Te Rerenga . and Tawhana Te Kaharoa objected to the gift and from that moment the plea ceased to have force. _ ; The position of this block is unsatis- , factory from the fact that at least half of the real owners are still unascertained this, however, is due entirely to the manoeuvres of Te Rerenga, who throughout the case spoke and acted as though they alone had obtained a right by conquest over the lands of Ngatitama. The status of Te Rerenga and his father Takerei in this tribe has never been disputed. They are the Arikiof Ngatimauiapoto but as warriors their names were never heard, and for that reason they can claim no special mana over the Poutama block which would justify Te Rerenga in his statement that this land belonged only to the resident section of his tribe. Moreover, this'claim is now repudiated by his son Kingi. who although asserting that he is entitled to a superior interest as a permanent resident yet claims thai all who participated in the conquest not only over Ngatitama hut also over Te Atiawa at MotDroa and Ngatiruanui at Te Ruaki should be admitted as having equal rights under the conquest. This is a position-as untenable as the other extreme adopted by his father. The questions for the consideration of the Court in the case of Teni Rangihapaimra will he : — Ist. Did the murder of Rangibapainga by Ngatitama and the subsequent revenge taken by her husband Hari at Tihimanuka confer any special or superior on her descendants apart from that of D other members of the tribe who. were engaged in the conquest. 2nd. In such case ought Teni Rangihapainga and her family to participate in these advantages. The Court is of opinion that the conquest of Ngatitama commeneed when the Tihimanuka pa was captured and Te Kawairiranpi killed, indeed there is every reason to believe thit a long series of defeats and the deaths of many great chiefs including, Rungaterangi Kahui Tangaroa, Whiti, Inu, Hanu, and Maun'gatautari i were unavenged until Ngatimanipoto won i this battle. But it is not clear to the ■ Court that this battle was both the : Alpha and Omega of the conquest, and even though this important fact had been s proved there still remains the fact that i Hari made any exclusive claim to t the land as he might well have done after I the battle. No evidence bus been given t that he ever claimed .the plaoe where his , I wife had been mnrdered much less a right • superior to that of his companions in arms. i Tawhana in his evidence says that the 5 Ngatitama of Katikatiuka followed the s Ngatimaniapoto as they retired from j Tihimanuka and that another battle f would have followed bad not Taonui and 3 Tariki objecced to fisht so far from the r shelter of apa on which they might rally 9 if defeated. From this it is clear that t Ngatitama were still a powerful tribe and a able to hold their own. , The Court is of the opinion that the e evidence does not disclose anything to prove that the descendants of Rangi- :- hapainga had a right superior to that of v other non-resident members of the Ngatir rora, Ngatiurunumia, and Ngatikinoi. haku. i. With reference to the second question, o the Court finds that Teni Rangihapainga r cannot be considered a descendant of ;- Rangihapainga, or even a near relative, t On this point their own genealogy as r given in Court is conclusive, e In Tawhana Te Kaharoa's case, the h questions for the decision of the Court d will be— n Ist. Does the undoubted occupation ot it that section of the Ngatirora, under Te e Kaharoa and Tawhana, which is admitted •- to have taken place about the year 1842, and extended to 1869, when the ie Mr Whitely was killed, justify the Court g in awarding to them au interest in the t, block superior to that of the non-resi-i- deats. i- 2. What effect, if any, had the fight at i. Pararewa on the conquest of this land ? a Wahanui in his evidence says that the il occupation of Tawhana and others was, •n in fact, the occupation of the whole tribe—indeed, that all who resided on ie the land were placed in that position to id bold the conquered territory. There is

no doubt a certain amount of truth in this view of the case ; but it is not all the truth, for it it Las not bton shown that this very important matter was settled at a formal meeting of the tribes held for that purpose, and therefore the court will adopt I this view, that the chiefs in question acted by virtue of their own mana, and occupied, as important members uf the conquering tribe, and that such occupation must be considered when .apportioning interests. It cannot be sai.l that au occupation extending over nearly thirty years jfives a man no claim over those who have never been near tholand. With reference to the l'ararewa fight, in which the famous warrior Tupoki was killed, the court is of opinion that this was the second and concluding battle of the campaign, which resulted in the conquest of the Poutama Block. Reference has been made to other fights and to the capture of the Whakarewa pa on laud, to

the south of this block, but no single witness had been able to give the name of any person killed in these engagements. Under such circumstances the court must conclude, (1) that the conquest of this land was effected by the battles of Tihimanuka and Pararewa ; (2) that the last named fight gave the victors no claim superior to those engaged in the first since it was fought ou Ngatimaniapoto ground in order to repel an invasion of the Ngatitama and the victors were for the most part of the Ngatihana or Ngatipaoa tribes. The claim of Kingi Takerei involves several matters which will require consideration. 1. Did the Mokau hapus, known under the tribal name of Ngatihia, take part in the battles of Tihimanuka and Pararewa P 2. Did the Ngatikaputuhi. Ngatimatakore and other northern hapus of Ngatimaniapoto for whom Kingi claims equal rights under conquest take part in these battles ? 3. Did the military operations subsequent to these battles have any bearing on the Ngatitama lands north of the i White Cliffs ? 4. What occupation had the Mokau hapu on this land ? From the evidence given by Wahanni and others in this case, the Court is of opinion that the Mokau people with a few exceptions did not take part in the Tihimanuka fight. The expression used by Takerei, " Haere ki wai oti atu," (go to the coast and die there) is conclusive that that chief regarded the war party as being engaged in a very hazardous undertaking, and that he did not join in the attack, for this reason it is unlikely that many of his people were engaged. As regards Pararewa, there is reason to believe that some at least of the Ngatirakei and Ngatiwaikorara joined for they were undoubtedly near at hand when the two war parties met, and as they had only a few days previously been driven pell mell from the Motutawa Pa, aud their chief Tikawe killed by these samd Ngatitama, it was only natural that they should desire revenge, and join the valiant Ngatirora and their allies in the attack. There is no direct evidence to

show that the Mokau people took a leading part in the struggle, but there is sufficient to warrant the Court in believiug that they did participate in the conquest. With reference to the second point the Court is of opinion that the Ngatikaputuhi and other northern hapus did not take any part in the two battles already mentioned. Te Rangituatea was undoubtedly present, but Te Rerenga regarded this as so small a matter that we are told that he refused to include among the owners his direct descendants. The very remote connections of this chief who now claimed to have acquired a right by virtue of his being present at Tihimanuka, can, in the opinion of the Court derive no advantage from that fact. As regards the third question, it is by no means clear to the Court why Kingi Takerei should have been so anxious to prove tbat the only fights by which the conquest was effected were those subsequent to Pararewa. Such a line of action can only be explained by the presumption that Kingi knew that the Mokau people or his northern friends had failed to obtain any right by conquest previous to the action at Pararewa, and therefore desired to make much of the operations of a subsequent date. No doubt there were engagements after the action so often referred to, but so far as the court is aware there was no fighting on this land, and in most cases it is not clear that Ngatitama took part in

them. If they were present on any of these occasions, it was as allies of the Atiawa not as principals. The astonishing ignorance of their own history and genealogy, which is a characteristic of the Ngatimaniapoto, renders it extremely difficult to obtain a correct account of the events of 70 years ago, but the Court has reason to believe that the followiug were the chief events after Pararewa, and if this is' so, thori it is quite, clear that not one of these battles can have had any effect on the Ngatitama lands:— 1. Ngapuketurua, where Tukorehu and his ope were defeated and shut up in the Pukerangiora Pa, where they were defended by the Ngatirahiri against the remaining hapus of Te Atiawa and Ngatitama. 2. Okoki, where both Waikato and Ngatimaniapoto were met and defeated by To Rauparaha and his allies, and the great warriors Te Hiakai, Mama and Hore killed, besides many others of less note. 3. Pukerangiora. This was a most treacherous attack on •the people who had befriended the Ngatimaniapoto on a previous occasion and it has always been said that none of the Ngatitama were in the pa. Moreover, it cannot be contended that this battle had any influence as against that tribe, for the reason that the origin of the quarrel was also different. Here the only excuse was that Raugiwahia had used an insulting expression reflecting on Tukorehu as a warrior. Moturoa was the fourth battle, and here the Ngatimaniapoto were defeated by Ngatitama, and Te Atiawa, led by Te Kaiaia and Wharepouri, and it was only after the Waikato and other northern tribes had retreated to their own country tbat Ngatitama and Te Atiawa migrated to Kapiti, where the main body of their tribes were already settled. About 40 persons of the Pukelapu hapu remained behind, instigated by tribal pride to hold on to the land, so that it might not be said that they had completely deserted it. These unfortunates were subsequently captured by the Ngatimaniapoto at Moturoa, and this is one of the fights referred to by Kingi as having mana over the Poutama block. As for the capture of the Ruaki Pa, that place is in the midst of the Ngatiruanui country, none of the Atiawa or Ngatitama were there, and therefore it is that the action could have no possible effect on the title to the Poutama block. It may w.ell be that there were other small fights "which took place at or about the date of the above concerning which no evidence has been given, indeed the Court is aware that there were such -affairs, viz , when Te Rarotutahi fell, and also when Ngarape was captured at ' Waipingao. These skirmishes could have no great effect on the conquest, but i the Court will consider the case of those hapus, or members of hapus who may s have been engaged in them, or who may ; indirectly have acquired an interest in the Ngatimaniapoto conquest though not : actually engHged.. s With reference to the occupation ot 1 the Ngatirakei and other Mokau hapus, , the Court is satisfied that there was some . occupation, but not to anything like the 5 extent claimed by Kingi. For instance, : during the first hearing, not one of the ■ witnesses claimed that either Te Rerenga or his father had ever occupied, now t however, Kingi claims that he and all ? his people, perhaps 70 in number, lived 3 on the block. . , The Court awards to Teni Rangina--2 painga and those claiming with her on« i share each, in all 21 shares. _ ) To Te Tawhana Te Kaharoa and his a people, 36 in number, 39|-shares,

To Kingi Takerei, and the 110 persons claiming with him, the following shard: ! Thirty "persons admitted out of Aroha, each ; twelve membrrs of the northern hapus, J-share each ; fifty-six persons of the Mokau hapus, 1 share each; twenty persons of the Mokau hapus, H-shares each.