UNIUKAIMATA JUDGMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3175, 29 October 1892, Page 1 (Supplement)

UNIUKAIMATA JUDGMENT.

Four applications have been made to the Court for inclusion in the roll of owner* of this block—viz., by Wharo Kaitangata. Hiti Paiariki, Pairatua Kepa, and Te Rangituataka. The first three claim in that portion of the block belonging to Te Paemate; the last in tho portion of Hinirarakau.

Wharo bases his claim on descent from three of the children of Te Paemate, namely Urukaiwheta, Whakaopa, and Kuraroa, and asserts that he has tired at J Te Umuweka, Pukewharangi, and other j places on the block, and that his ancestors occupied in the same manner As a proof of his mma, he claims that when the Ngati Te Paemata and Ngatihingarakau were on the verge of extinction at the hands of Taranaki and Whanganui tka', Wharo Kaitangata the First came to their assistance, defeated the enemy, and killed Tamahura and other chiefe, and that for this eervice the Ngatihingarakau gave him tbeir land. As to the latter portion of this claim hut little need be said, since it has already been rejected by the Court at the original hearing. This Court will, however, remark that in the Aorangi case Wharo claimed only the Wairere eel weir as tho reward given to his ance-tors for services rendered against Taranaki, and then only mentioned Ngatihingarakau as the protected tribe. Te Rewatu and Hinerangi, on behalf of tha defendants, deny that either Urukniwheta Whakaopa or Kuraroa were children of Te Paemate, or that Wharo is descended from that ancestor. They maintain that he is the chief of NgaHwaiora, and as euch has always lired with that tribe at Te Karu-o-Te Whenua, and has never lived with the Ngati Te Paemate. ! The Court is of opinion that Wharo is a leading chief of Ngatiwaiora, a tribe distinct from Ngatitepacmate, and for this reason alone would have rejected his claim. But the Court has other reasons. It is by no means clear that the ancestors claimed by Wharo are from Te Paemate aud even if proved to be so, the Court holds thit mere descent from a common ancestor will in itself give no valid claim, there must also be occupation as a recognised member of the tribe to whom the land belongs. In this case Wharo has told so many stories directly at variance one with the other that he has defeated his own claim. He has said :— (1) From the time of Te Paemate to that of Tumatahuna we had a right on this land. (2) Tumatahuna had aucestril right over this land. Now these statements are' not to be reconciled with those made by him at the original hearing of this case. He then said :— " We did not live on Uniukaimata but on Poroa just outside, we did however cultivate on this block." " Kuraroa married Tutaimaro, they and their child Paruparu lived ou the Kuiti block." ''Tumatahuna owned this block, she had no ancestral right to it, her claim was derived from a gift." "This land belonged originally to Ruahinepaewai, a descendant of whom married Wehitaua, and his descendants gave the land to Tumatahuna, only these descended from Ruahinepiewai have an ancestral right on this land." "The realTe Paemate are from Wehiiana. During the first hearing of this block from which the above extracts are made there was no mention of Whakaopa but Wharo did claim descent from Urukaiwhetu and Kuraroa and expressly said that neither had ancestral right on the land, yet he now claims these two as his ' take.' There is no necessity for the Court to say which of these two tales is true, clearly in one c»9e or the other Wharo has perjured himself and the court dismisses his claims. Hiti Paiariki claims a right through Paretitirangi, daughter of Te Urukaiwheta and wife of Paiariki, and also through that very doubtful ancestor Whakaopa who had apparently only lately been discovered for the purpose of this case—Hiti maintaining that though he had no occupation' both his father and mother did reside hereon. From Hiti's own evidence it is apparent that he has no ancestors buried on this block, and that if they ever did live here it was before the marriage of Paretitirangi and Paiariki eight generations ago. Hiti sets great store by the faot that on the Uniukaimata Block there is an eel weir called, as he asserts, Te Kohatu a Paretitirangi, but even though this is admitted to be true, it would still have no bearing on the case, since it is shown that the weir is on the land of Hingarakau, which Hiti does not claim. The evidence of Te Rewatu and Hinerangi, shows conclusively that neither Hiti nor his ancestors even occupied this land; that his tribes are Ngatituriu and Ngatihinewhara. and their land* at Te Karu o te Whenua and Taorua.

In the opinion of the court Hiti has failed to show that he has either occupative or ancestral right. His claim is, therefore, dismissed.

Pairama Kepa claims for himself and twenty-nine of hU immeiiate relatives by right of descent from Waiau (a daughter of Te Paemate) and occupation, extending te the time of his parents. He claims also that one of his ancestor*, Pehiwheti, is buried ou the block. It is not denied that Waiau was a daughter of Te Paemate, but Te Rewatu shows tbat this woman left her tribe and married a man of the Whanganui people, and that her descendants remained away for three generations— viz., until the time of Tainui—who returned and lived, not on thiri (land, but on the Karu o te Whenua. among the Ngatiwainru, where he married Te Aurea, and tbeir descendants still ocoupy that land, It is evident that from the time of Waiau to the present day not one of her descendants have intermarried into the Ngatite Paemate, and it seems beyond dispute that they belong to that erroup of hapus, of which Wharo is the chief, and that they are only very remotely connected with the Uniukaimata tribe. This connection gives them no valid claim on this land. Their case is, therefore dismissed. Rangituataka claims an interest in +he laud of Hingarakau by virtue of descent from Mahora. This claim i« supported by Hinerangi, but denied hy Tangihaere. who asserts that Mahora is not from Hingarakau, and that the residence of Rangituataka was merely that af his aunt Merepeka. The question here is merely one of amount of interest to be awarded. Rangituatake thinks he is entitled to claim with the leading men in this hapu, bnt the court will not take the same view. It is now five generations since Te Rangituatea married Mahora. Their daughter married Te Ita, also a stranger to this hapn. and their daughter Parerahui married one of the Otorohanga tribe, Te Kawa. All of these men were of high rank, aud certainly never left their own tribe to remain here. The relationship is remote, and the occupation doubtful. Under such circumstances the court will award Te Rangituataka one share, but will not include hi» son.