JUDGMENT IN ORAHIRI NO. 2 BLOCK

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3154, 10 September 1892, Page 6 (Supplement)

JUDGMENT IN ORAHIRI NO. 2 BLOCK

DEFINITION OF INTEREST THIS case was opened by Pepene Eketone on the 1st day of August 1802, when he made the following offers in order to prevent unnecessary litigation : - To Te Kanawa Tangihaere and his people4100 acres; to Horopapera and his people, 500 acres; to Hone Omipi and his people, 200 acres. The case was then adjourned in order that the offer might be considered, with the result thar Horopapera accepted the offer, but the Kanawa party refused. Mr Ormsby was absent. On the following morning Tuhoro, on behalf of Te Kanawa. set up a case, which was finished the same day. On the 4th, however, Mr Ormsby appeared before the court, and claimed to be heard on behalf of his people, for the reason that the 200 acres offered would not, in his opinion, cover the right he claimed on this block. Hari Whenua Herangi also asked to be allowed to set up a, case on behalf of Ngarori Waaka and others of Ngatihinewai. These two cases occupied the court for three days, and will be the first dealt with.

After hearing the evidence in those two cases, the court can scarcely find words to express its astonishment that Mr John Ormsby and Hari Whenua should have considered it advisable to take up the time of the court and spend their own and other persons' money during three days in contesting a claim to land to which it is clear they have not, and never have had, a shadow of right—land to which they can only have been admitted by that system of aroha, by virtue of which the elders of Ngatimaniapoto have been enabled to prevent their young people acquiring in any one place a sufficient quantity of land on which they could live comfortably and earn a living. This has been accomplished by admitting into the roll of owners nearly everyone but those who had a right to be there. The following is Mr Ormsby's genealogy, of which he shows his ancestral claim on this land : — Rangitahi Tukawekai Ue Tohiraukena Te Rangikaiwiria Te Whatu I I I Parepupa Tiakitai Waipuwhero Te Kauwhata Whakamakiterangi f Ra'gihemonoa I Ngatokowaru Pirakaraka I I Matakorama m Te Wakaroa I I Pianiko Ngapou - Rangitia Johm Ormsby Roarangitia Concerning the genealogy the Court will have a good deal to say. In the evidence given during the first investigation of the title to this block it was shown most conclusively and not denied that during the lifetime of the ancestor Tiakiti a quarrel arose between Takioinoa, a descendant of Tukawekai, and the great chief of that day Te Wharaunga with the result that Takioinoa aided by Tiakiti not only raised a war party to attck the Ngatimaniapoto but also murdered Taitoko, a leading chief of that tribe— for this offence these men were attacked and defeated at Taraingahere, Tiakiti was killed and his people driven to take shelter with the Whanganui and other alien tribes—indeed it may be said that they are now before the Court as owners of South Ohura. In the opinion of the Court this battle absolutely and finally extinguished the claim of the descendants of Tukawekai over this block.

Mr Ormsby attempts to set up a side issue to the effect that as Rangihemonoa was a lineal descendant of Tohiraukena (the undoubted owner of this land), therefore he is entitled to claim whatever benefit there may be in descent from that ancestor—now the genealogy of Rangihemonoa here given is not admitted by the claimants as genuine—but the point is not of importance because she was the wife of Tiakiti the man who was slain by Raingituataka and her children would almost certainly be involved in the ruin that overtook the tribe when Tiakiti was slain. The Court cannot admit that Mr Ormsby can derive any right by virtue of his descent from Tiakiti no matter who the wife may have been. Mr Ormsby makes much of the fact that Parepupa, the ancestress of Ngatokowaru one of the leading chiefs of Ngatirangatahi was from Tukawekai and urges that fact as proof that all the descendants of that ancestor could not therefore have been driven away. This point will not assist Mr Ormsby, for he forgot to mention that Parepepa's husband was Kupe, a descendant of Tohiraukena and only retained her position by virtue of that marriage The mana of Ngatokowaru over this land was beyond dispute, but it was not derived from Parepupa and therefore Mr Ormsby must at once disassociate himself from Ngatokowaru whose mana cannot assist him since their claims are not parallel. So far we have dealt with the generation down to and including that of Tiatiki, audit will now be the duty of the court to ascertain and consider what right, if any, may havo accrued to the last-mentioned chief's descendants. To do this it will only be necessary to consider Mr Ormsby's own evidence. He tells us that Whakamakiterangi married To Ngaio, of the Ngatipaiariki tribe, and lived at Te Kopua, and that their child Pirakaraka married Te Ra, of the Ngatihinewai and Ngatipaiariki tribe, and that their daughter Matakorama married Te Raku of Ngatipaiariki. Here we have three generations of the latter tribe, and it may well be asked what possible claim has Mr Ormsby to be considered a Ngatirangatahi, or to claim a right to share in the land of that tribe. Nothing can be clearer than the fact that he is a Ngatipaiariki, and that he has not the remotest right to claim affinity with the descendants of Tohiraukeua, who alone have an ancestral claim to Orahiri No. 2.

That he ever succeeded in getting himself and relatives on the roll of owners would bo astonishing were it not that in the early days of the Rohe Potae court it would appear to have been the rule rather than the exception to crowd the land with people who had no other claim than that of being remotely connected with the ancestor, and to deceive the court as to the real position of the applicants. It is in this way and this way only that Mr Ormsby has succeeded in becoming an owner, for he tells the court that when the Ngatipaiariki and other tribes fled from Ngapuhi after the fight at Matakitaki, Te Wakaroa and Pirakaraka and their children came hither from the Kopua seeking shelter and safety, and were received by Ngatokowaru, Pairangi, Te Ringahoro and other descendants of Toheraukeua, and that they lived here with other alien tribes from that date— 1823 to 1848. It is the opinion of the court that this is precisely what did happen, for it is a matter of history that after the disastrous defeat at Matakitaki, the whole of the Waikato tribes were utterly disorganised, and took refugesome at Mokau and Kawhia, and some at other places—living indiscriminately on anyone's land, and in many cases this condition of things continued even after the introduction of Christianity.

Such is the nature of Mr Ormsby's claim, who says truly : " My right to occupy is disputed, but not the fact of my having had the occupation I claim." It is this very question of the right to occupy that this Court must now decide. Mr Ormsby does not deny that while living on this land they occasionally resided oil their own ancestral lands at Kopua, and that these lands have been awarded to them by the Native Land Court, but he claims that when the Orahiri Block was first brought before tile Court he and Ngatoko were one and worked together : this is so, but if Mr Ormsby desires the Court to infer that Ngatoko thereby admitted his right, the Court; cannot do so, for it is a curious fact that throughout the long investigation Ngatoko not only never once mentioned the Ormsby family as having a claim on the land, but he also neglected to mention them in any of the genealo-

lies given by him. This omission is significant, and the Court must infer that at that time Ngatoko did not know, or at any rate recognise, that any such right existed, and therefore that it Mr Ormsby's addition to the roll of owners was merely a recognition of the fact that he had resided here for a few years.

The Courts will sum up its decision in this case in a few words : The mere fact that the Ngatipiaariki did reside on Orahiri No.2 for a few years, to which land they had no previous ancestral claim, can give them no possible right or title to the land so occupied. Had the descendants of Tohiraukeua intended that the Ngatipaiariki should acquire a permanent right, to this land, a formal gift of the Kaingas occupied would have been made to them. No such gift is alleged. Had the Ngatipaiariki been able to show that by their residence on Orahiri they had lost their title to other lands, it would still be a question as to whether the Court would be justified in assuming that they had thereby gained a right on these lands. In this case the Ngatipaiariki gain nothing by living on the lands of other tribes for 20 years or less, and it is equally certain that they have lost nothing. Their own ancestral lands have been awarded to them, and they can claim nothing more.

The ease set up by Hari Whenua Herangi on behalf of Waaka and others has even less foundation than that just dealt with. Here there is no pretension of descent from Rangatahi, We are told that the Waaka family are Ngatihinewai pure and simple and as such are owners in the Otorohanga block. This claim is in fact based solely on the occupation of this land by Te Waaka during which period he is said to have lived with his friend Te Kawa. Hari Whenua asserts that this occupation was prior to tho Matakitaki defeat, but, the claimants' witnesses assert that Te Waaka did come with one of the many Hekes from Matakitaki, the point is, however, of small importance. In this case as in the last Te Waaka lost nothing by his occupation, and in like manner will gain nothing. The ruling of the Court on this point is : — The fact of having occupied any given tract of land will give the occupier no title as against the rightful owners, unless it can be shown, that there was a right of some sort existing prior to the occupation. Such prior rights might be either descent from the ancestor to whom land was awarded or gift.

Where there has been a gift subsequent to the occupation, the claim would properly be under that head,

Where the occupation has commenced previous to the year I84O and extended to the present day, the prior right should be presumed. The Court will award the shares in accordance with this decision.

During the first, investigation of title to this block, Te Kanawa who was the claimant, set up Rangatahi and Puha as the ancestors from whom the title to this land was derived, and subsequently Hana Taare and others forced him to add thereto Tohiraukeua.

The interest of Puha has already been cut out and is moreover so small that it need not be noticed, here we have only to do with the conflicting claims of those descended from Rangatahi.

In the judgment delivered in this ease the following passage:—" It has been after the first hearing, there occurs shown that the principal occupation on this land West of Waitomo has been by Hauparoa, Ngatoko and others of the Nsratirangatahi," if for this tribe the words—descendants of Tohiraukena —had been substituted as was probably intended this Court would freely endorse the statement. Since it is clear that the only right that Te Kanawa and those claiming with him can have on this land is derived from the conquest of Te Wharaunga over the descendants of Tukawekai, and not from ancestral right. It must be clear to everyone who has heard the evidence that Rangatahi ought not to have been put forward as the principal ancestor on this block, for this reason, that only one of his five children, viz., Tohiraukena, has held mana over this land down to the present time, but it is also obvious why he was set up, for Te Kanawa is not a descendant of Tohiraukena, vide genealogy. Rangitahi. Heketerangi f, Urunumia, Te Kawa Tumarouru f. Te Kanawa, Whaiapare Tutunui Te Wharaunga Taumanu Pango Te Whare Te Kanawa Of these three children of Rangatahi it is shown that Hekeiterangi went away to Waikato and married there ; that Tumarouru married into the Ngatikikairo tribe, and her daughter Whaiapari had no right on this land, and that Urunumia also went away and married Te Kawa. Moreover, it is clear that up to the time of Te Whaiaunga, none of these people pretended to havo a claim to the land. Then, however, the last-named chief having in combination with all Ngatimaniapoto attacked and driven away the descendants of Tukawekai, took possession of the south-eastern end of Orahiri No 2 by right of conquest, and not as Te Kanawa now alleges, by ancestral right. Te Kanawa does not deny that, of all the descendants of the three children of Rangatahi mentioned in his geneaology, only a few of Te Wharaunga's descendants have a right on this block. This is in itself proof positive that the right is not ancestral, but by conquest. The only question then is, what land was conquered ? Most certainly that of Tohikaukena was not ; moreover, Te Kanawa can only claim the conquered land occupied by him and this so far as the evidence discloses did not extend much beyond the western bank of the Waitomo stream. There is reason to believe that the mana of Te Kanawa extended over most of the descendants of Tohiraukeua, but that mana did not at any time extend to the land on which those persons resided.

The Court awards to Te Kanawa and party, 500 acres in South-east corner of Urahiri, No. 2. To Horopapera Ihakara and party, 500 acres on southern boundary of Block west of Te Kanawa's award. To John Ormshy and party, 200 acres in neighbourhood of Mokotanoa on southern boundary, and to the remaining owners the balance of this block.