THE OKAUIA BLOCK (MINUTE BY THE CHIEF JUDGE, NATIVE LAND COURT, UPON TWO PETITIONS FROM KOROWHITI TUATAKA [MRS. DOUGLAS] RELATING TO).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1887 Session II, G-06

G-.—6

Sess. 11.—1887. NEW ZEALAND.

THE OKAUIA BLOCK (MINUTE BY THE CHIEF JUDGE, NATIVE LAND COURT, UPON TWO PETITIONS FROM KOROWHITI TUATAKA [MRS. DOUGLAS] RELATING TO).

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

Minute for the information of the Hon. the Native Minister upon two Petitions dated respectively the 26th July, 1885, and the 14th May, 1887, by Korowhiti Tuataka (Mrs. Douglas) relative to her Name having been omitted from the List of Names of those declared by the Native Land Court to be the Owners of the Okauia Block; also upon another Matter affecting the same Land. Mes. Douglas's complaint is that the Court, having adjudged Okauia to the Ngatihinerangi Tribe, and accepted petitioner as a member of it, afterwards omitted to place her name in the orders for memorials of ownership as a part owner. Judging by the matter before me, I believe Mrs. Douglas's statement, as put by me above, to be true. But lam of opinion that it is equally true that the presiding Judge (Judge Monro) discovered that a fraud had been practised upon him, and inserted Mrs. Douglas's name as an owner in the precise status the Court had intended for her, before being misled into the temporary omission of her name. The foundation for the above conclusions is the documents marked A, B, C, D, B, F in the Appendix hereto. Discrepancies which appear between the statements of Mr. and Mrs. Douglas and of Judge Monro do not affect the material issue. Mrs. Douglas applied for a rehearing, which was refused by the Governor in Council. In that application the ground of dissatisfaction with the Court's decision is, not that she had been denied ownership, but that her ownership had been regarded as of such minor character as to be satisfied by an interest in Okauia No. 2. As to Mr. Barton's remarks (Appendix F), it must be considered that he had only the statement of one side. So much for the ground of complaint set out in Mrs. Douglas's two petitions. But, in the course of my investigation, I discovered that Mrs. Douglas had been subjected to and still suffers a real injustice, whereof she appears to be ignorant, and for which the responsibility rests with me. The circumstance is as follows : The original proceeding as to Okauia was had in 1879. At a subsequent sitting of the Court, at which I presided, in 1883, Okauia No. 2 (whereof the earlier judgment had declared Mrs. Douglas a part owner) came before the Court for division, when the block was divided into eight pieces, each being awarded to different sets of those who theretofore held Okauia No. 2 in common. I now discover that the names of two of the owners of Okauia No. 2 do not appear as owners of any one of the eight parts into which, on the division before me, Okauia No. 2 was divided. The two persons whose names were so omitted were Tiki Pita and Te Korowhiti (Mrs. Douglas). In explanation of this omission I can only say that on signing the eight several orders I failed to detect the clerk's omission to insert the two names in one or the other order. This omission cannot now be put right by amendment, as there is nothing to guide me as to which of the eight orders it was from which the two names were omitted. The only remedy is by the Legislature, in the Special Powers and Contracts or other Acts, nullifying the division procedure before me as to Okauia No. 2, and leaving that procedure to be had again. Fortunately, there having been no dealings with Okauia No. 2, there is nothing to prevent the remedy suggested being applied. J. E. Macdonald, Auckland, 28th September, 1887. Chief Judge.

APPENDICES.

Appendix A. Half-way House, Oropi Bush, Tauranga, 26th July, 1885. To the Hon. the Speakek and Members of the House of Eepeesentatives of New Zealand, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Te Korowhiti Tuataka Douglas, respectfully showeth, — 1. That your petitioner is an aboriginal native of New Zealand, and a member of the Ngatihinerangi Tribe, living at Te Puna and other settlements.

G.—6

2

2. That in or about the year 1879 a block of land, called by the name of " Okauia," situate in the Upper Thames or Patetere district, was adjudicated upon by the Native Land Court of New Zealand, and finally awarded to Te Korowhiti Tuataka Douglas and others. 3. That after such decision your petitioner was informed by Judge Monro, in open Court, that her name would be inserted in the order of Court for a certificate of title to the Okauia Block. 4. That owing to illness in her family your petitioner was called from Cambridge to Tauranga the day after that on which the decision was given; but, before leaving, took the pains to again address the Judge in open Court and ask whether her presence was further required, and whether she had the permission of the Judge to leave Cambridge, when the Judge replied to her in these words : " Epai ana, me haere noatu koe, i te mea kua tika koe," which, being interpreted, meant " Yes; there is no objection to your going away, as you have proved your claim; " whereupon your petitioner left Cambridge, satisfied that her name would, be inserted in the certificate of title for the whole block, excepting 1,400 acres awarded to Ngatihaua. 5. That subsequently your petitioner ascertained that, although all the names of her hapu and nearest relations had been inserted in the certificate of title for the block, nevertheless her name had been omitted therefrom, in consequence of which she has been deprived of her interest in the said block. 6. That within three months after the decision referred to your petitioner lodged a petition with the Native Land Court, asking for a rehearing of the block and that the omission of her name in the certificate of title be rectified. Therefore, your petitioner humbly prays your honourable House to afford her such redress as you may deem meet. Tβ Kobowhiti (her x mark) Tuataka Douglas. nr , (John Pedwick. Witnesses :{ JosGeegoby _

i Appendix B. Halfway House, Oropi Bush, 14th May, 1887. To the Hon. the Speaker and Membees of the House of Eepbesentatives of New Zealand, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Te Korowhiti Tuataka Douglas, showeth, — 1. That your petitioner has unremittingly petitioned this honourable House for some years past without receiving any relief. 2. That Mr. Commissioner Barton held an inquiry on the matter, taking the evidence upon oath in Tauranga, that led him to report, "That there is primd facie evidence that a fraud has been committed upon the petitioner, and it appears that the Native Affairs Committee recommended the Government to inquire into the matter and try to redress the grievance." 3. That after writing many letters to the Government, asking them to hold an inquiry into the matter, the Government at last tells me if I can substantiate the facts my only remedy is to go to law. 4. That your humble petitioner is poor and has not the means to go to law, and it appears that the public Press states that the Government is about to bring a Bill forward to annul the decision of the Supreme Court; therefore it would be of little use, it would still rest with the Government. 5. That your petitioner thinks that the facts have been substantiated on oath, and could be by over fifty persons (Native and European) that were present the whole of the time, but has not the means to bring them forward. 6. That your petitioner has a large family of nine young children; and that unlawfully being kept off their land that has been handed down to us for ten generations, and finally awarded to us by the Court; but we have been omitted from the title and my cousin inserted instead, as it appears in the evidence of Te Kawau. Therefore your petitioner humbly prays that the Hon. the Minister of Justice will intercede, and your honourable House will afford her such redress as you may deem meet. Tβ Koeowhiti (her x mark) Tuataka Douglas.

Appendix C. Fbiend, — Hairini, Tauranga, 10th August, 1879. Salutations to you. This is my application to you for a rehearing of Okauia. The reason I have asked for a rehearing of that block is this : I appeared before the Court at Cambridge for hearing the claims of Ngatihinerangi within this block Okauia. This was the decision of the Court respecting the claimants who were considered to be right: it was in favour of the descendants of Tangata, of Tokotoko, of Te Eiha. Mine is a peculiar case. lam a descendant of Tangata. The Court acknowledged my right, and included me in the claims of Ngatihinerangi on Okauia; twice the Court recognised my claims, and my right was mentioned in the European newspapers. The Court did not declare that there were to be two blocks, the one for sale, the other for reserve. The Court did not say there was to be a No. 1 and a No. 2 block in Okauia, but only one block. Second: My brother and I appeared before the Court to hand in my list of names, and to inform it that I was about to return to Tauranga because three of my children were ill. The Court replied that it was not right for me to give in a list of names, but mine alone ; also that I might return home because I was right. When Mr. Graham, the agent for Mr. Whitaker, heard that I and my husband were returning to Tauranga, Mr. Graham told my husband not to sell my share to any other European, for he would purchase it when he came to Tauranga, because your wife is right in all this land.

3

Q.—6

Third : Afterwards when Ngatihinerangi returned to Tauranga they told me my name was in the reserved land, 4,000 acres. The 25,000 acres of that land had been sold, but my name was not in it. lat once found fault with this work of land-stealing, because I was decided by the Court to be right in the whole of Okauia. I telegraphed to Judge Monro, and he replied thus : " The name of your wife is in Okauia No. 2 or Haukapa amended list. The Court never intended that she should be in the portion that has been sold.—H. A. H. Monbo, Judge, Native Land Court." The meaning of these words of the Judge in my opinion is this : Although I am right in this land I am not admitted by him, for I was not admitted to the block which has been sold —Okauia No. 1. Friend, consider this letter if it is good and right; or, if wrong, tell me so quickly. Enough. From Te Kokowhiti Tuataka (Mrs. E. Douglas, Tauranga). F. D. Fenton, Esq., Chief Judge, Native Land Court.

Appendix D. Memorandum by Judge Monro on Mrs. Douglas's Application for a Behearing. The claimants in this case were the Ngatihinerangi, the opponents were Ngatihaua and Ngatiraukawa. After a tedious hearing, judgment was given in favour of the first-named tribe. Te Korowhiti came from Hawke's Bay to prefer a claim as a descendant of Tangata, to whom the land known as Okauia was said to have originally belonged. The Ngatihinerangi ignored her pretensions altogether: they said that her ancestor had abandoned his tribe and district five generations ago, and that none of his descendants ever came back until Te Korowhiti herself, when a grown-up woman, came to visit a relative at Okauia, remained a short time, then married a European named Douglas and went away for good. Her claim was a very doubtful one, but as Ngatupara, one of the claimants, appeared inclined to recognise it to a certain extent, the Court decided to admit her, but only as having a very small interest. After the judgment was delivered, the Ngatihinerangi and the others who claimed with them held a meeting amongst themselves, at which it was unanimously decided to subdivide the block into five portions. Sixty of the principal owners were placed upon No. 1 Block, which they intended to sell, and those who had inferior interests were placed upon the other blocks which they intended to keep. This was entirely an arrangement amongst themselves with which the Court had nothing to do except to confirm, there being no objectors. Te Korowhiti left Cambridge immediately after the judgment was delivered, which settled, the tribal dispute only, without waiting to take part in the arrangements which she well knew had to be made, and the adjustment of the differences amongst the Ngatihinerangi themselves. The result was that they omitted her name altogether from the lists which were handed in. I added her name when I discovered the omission, placing her on No. 2 Ecserve. In placing her on one of the reserves I consider that full justice has been done her. She occupies the same position that more than a hundred others do who had better claims. Had she chosen to remain, instead of leaving abruptly, as she did, before the matter was half settled, she might have got a share of the money received for the portion which was sold; but that is doubtful, as the Ngatihinerangi were very much annoyed at her having been admitted at all. As it was, the money was divided amongst such a number that many only received three or four pounds, and went away poorer than they came. Te Korowhiti says that she told me of her intention to leave. I can only say that I have not the slightest recollection of it. Mr. Hammond, the Assessor, and several Natives whom I have questioned, say that she never said anything in Court about going away; and lam quite certain that outside the Court she never addressed me on any subject whatever. With what she said to Mr. Graham, or Mr. Graham to her, about selling her interest, the Court had nothing to do. Heney A. H. Monro, 4th September, 1879. Judge, Native Land Court.

Appendix E. Report by Judge Monro on Petitions. Okauia. —The claimants in this case were Te Kawau Himiona and the Ngatihinerangi, a small tribe occupying territory between the Thames and Tauranga. In the olden times they had powerful enemies on both sides of them ; but, owing to their courage and the rugged nature of their country, were able to hold their own and keep their lands intact. Their opponents in the Court were the Ngatihaua and Ngatiraukawa. Te Korowhiti (Mrs. Douglas) claimed an interest in the land as a Ngatihinerangi, but Te Kawau and his people refused to acknowledge either her or her claim. It appeared that her mother was a slave, who had been captured by the Tauranga people (the Ngaiterangi) from the Ngatikahuhunu, a Napier tribe, and resided with her captors at Tauranga. Her father was a Ngatihinerangi, but was not acknowledged by them as a chief. He abandoned his tribe, went over to Tauranga, and took up his abode with their enemies, the Ngaiterangi; took to wife the before-mentioned Ngatikahuhunu slave, and joined the Ngaiterangi in fighting against his own tribe. By so doing, according to Maori custom, his offspring lost any right they might have possessed to claim a share in the tribal land. After the introduction of Christianity, when the wars had ceased, a man of the Ngatihinerangi went to Tauranga, and took to wife a woman of the Ngaiterangi, a relative of Te Korowhiti, who was at that time a young girl. Te Korowhiti went to Okauia to visit her relative, and was permitted by the Ngatihinerangi to occupy and cultivate a piece of ground. She remained for one year, and then left for good. But for this one year's residence, and cultivation, the Court would have disallowed her claim altogether.The account given by Te Kawau Himiona to Mr. Commissioner Barton of a meeting of Messrs, Whitaker, Graham, and the Ngatihinerangi, at Cambridge, during the sitting of the Court, is pro.

G.—6

4

bably correct, for it is true that Mr. W. A. Graham, the licensed interpreter who was acting for the purchasers, did inform the Court, as Te Kawau states, that the Ngatihinerangi had agreed to admit a cousin of Te Korowhiti as one of the owners, and that in consequence she (Te Korowhiti) had withdrawn her claim, and gone back to Tauranga. As I had known Mr. Graham for a long time, and considered him to be an honourable and truthful man, and as none of the Natives present contradicted him, although some of Te Korowhiti's own friends were among them, I accepted the statement as a fact, and Te Korowhiti's name was omitted. I found afterwards that I had been deceived, and at once rectified the mistake by adding her name to the list of owners of Haukapa (the 860-acre reserve). I placed her on Haukapa because it was on that portion of the block that she had lived and cultivated during her twelve months' occupation, and on that part alone that she had, in my opinion, the slightest claim. To have placed her on the large block would have been to put her on an equality with the resident Ngatihinerangi, through whose tenacious hold alone the land had been preserved from their enemies. Mr. Douglas estimates that his wife's interest was worth £1,500 —that is, he considered that the daughter of a slave mother, and of a father who abandoned his people and joined their enemies, is entitled to an equal share with the principal chiefs of the tribe. I fully expected that Mr. Graham and the Ngatihinerangi would, at the close of the case, make application to have Te Korowhiti's share defined. Had they known the mind of the Court as to the value of her interest they would doubtless have done so, instead of attempting to get rid of her by deceiving the Judge. In that case she would have been awarded a small piece of land in Haukapa, and nothing more. As it is, she has an undefined interest in that portion of the block with the other Ngatihinerangi. Considering the very doubtful nature of her claim, I think that she obtained as much as she had any right to expect. Henby A. H. Moneo, St. George's Bay, Auckland, 2nd July, 1887. Judge, Native Land Court.

Appendix F. Mr. Barton's Remarks. The other transaction, which illustrates a different mode of getting rid of owners who will not sell, is as follows :— The same Mrs. A. was interested in a large block of land (29,000 acres). She attended the Land Court and established her claim to the satisfaction of the Judge, and then she and her husband were telegraphed for to return home immediately, on account of the serious illness of two of their children. This necessity to leave being represented to the Judge, she was informed by him that she might leave, and that the interest she had proved before him would be protected. Before leaving, the purchasers offered her £300 for her share, but Mr. and Mrs. A. refused to sell on any terms. The moment she and her husband had gone away the European purchasers saw their opportunity. They arranged with the tribe that, as Mrs. A. would not sell, her name should be left out of the list and replaced by that of her cousin, who had no objection to sell Mrs. A.'s share, if transferred to her, and to take the purchase-money for herself. Accordingly the list of names of owners of the blocks was made up, omitting Mrs. As. name and inserting instead that of the more convenient cousin ; and when, on the list being presented in Court, the Judge inquired how it happened that Mrs. A.'s name was omitted, the Native Interpreter of the purchasers got up and informed the Judge that her cousin's name had been inserted instead of Mrs. A.'s at Mrs. A.'s own express request. Upon this statement being made on behalf of a gentleman of position, in presence of the tribe and of the conductors of the case, the Judge appears to have been deceived into the belief that the omission of Mrs. A.'s name was really by her own desire, and he thereupon passed the list with the cousin's name inserted and Mrs. A.'s name omitted. The cousin then sold and transferred all Mrs. A.'s interest in 29,000 acres to the purchasers; and it was not till long afterwards that Mrs. A. heard a word of the transaction, and as to the purchase-money she has never received a farthing. This case also passed the Frauds Prevention Commissioner in due course, and it cannot be supposed that any of these facts were disclosed to him. Mrs. A knew nothing of the application to the Frauds Prevention Commissioner to pass the application, and therefore had no opportunity of proving before him the fraud that had been practised upon her. 14th May, 1886, G. E. Bakton.

[Aiiproxiviate Cost of Pax>er.— Preparation, nil; printing (1,375 copies), £2 11s. 6d.]

By Authority: George Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lBB7