NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 21/1921, RELATIVE TO IDENTITY OF KAHO, ONE OF THE GRANTEES OF OKAHU BLOCK.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1922 Session I, G-06f

GL—6f

1922. NEW ZEALAND*

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 21/1921, RELATIVE TO IDENTITY OF KAHO, ONE OF THE GRANTEES OF OKAHU BLOCK.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and, Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22.

Native Department, Wellington, I.sth September, 1922. Re Petition No. 21/1921, Grant 3749, Okahu Block. I forward herewith, in accordance with section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22, the report of the Native Land Court herein. I am not at all convinced that the Court has come to a correct conclusion as to the identity of the person named Raho in the grant, for the following reasons : — 1. The Crown grant unmistakably sets out the name as " Raho." 2. The recommendation for the issue of the grant dated 11th January, 1882, signed by Sir William Fox, also clearly sets out the name as " Raho," and the list of names is initialled " W.F." Out of the eight names on the list four begin with the letter R, three with X, and the remaining name is Pipi. They are plainly written in each case. 3. It is acknowledged Kaho, or Te Kaho, was dead when the grant was recommended. Sir William Pox was not likely to have knowingly placed the name of a dead person in. the grant. 4. It is pretty certain that there was a person named Raho who might be the person referred to and who could have been included in the grant. 5. The Court in making the report has acted upon wrong premises— (a.) In treating a list attached to the file manifestly made after and in contradiction of the grant as authoritative. (o.) In finding that Rangiwhetu in 1887 knowingly gave false evidence. There is no occasion to adopt that hypothesis if Rangiwhetu had been informed that the name " Kaho " was in the grant, and his wife had a child of that name over five years old. It is on record that he, as father, succeeded to Rangimahu, who was also in the grant. (c.) In supposing Raho got thirty or any shares by the grant itself, or that Rangiwhetu received eighty shares. The shares were left undefined in the grant. (d.) In assuming Raho was not born or was a baby in 1882. This apparently contradicts the records. When Raho died in 1914, according to the report, he left issue. The four children are all shown as adults. If the youngest was twenty-one years on the Ist April, arithemetical calculation would tend to show the parent was more than a more infant in 1882. 6. Probably the real explanation is that those who were included in the grant were intended to be trustees for themselves and others. The land is cited as a reserve, and is so referred to in 1880, G.-2 (particularly page 9, question 107 et seq). Por the reasons given I recommend that no legislation be passed for the purpose of settling the identity of the person named " Raho " in the grant. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge. Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington.

Gr.~6jf

2

Hawera, 7th July, 1922. Decision of Court. — Report of the Native L,and Court (Aotea District) on the Inquiry as to who are the Rightful Successors to Te Kaho (or Raho) in Grant 3749, Okahu Block. Mr. John Morgan appeared in support on behalf of petitioners (Petition No. 21 of 1921). Pouwhareumu appeared for the Te Raho family. The hearing took place at Hawera on the 21st and 22nd June, 1922 (Taranaki M.B. 33, folios 84-88 and 93-99). The Court reports as follows :— 1. Te Kaho was a man who died about 1879, and left issue (shown M.B. 33, folio 88). He was quite a distinct person from Te Ratio, who died in 1914 and also left issue (shown M.B. 21, folio 150). 2. The Court is satisfied that Te Kaho was one of the recognized owners of Okahu while he was alive, and that he received rents up to the time of his death (M.B. 32/85). Pouwhareumu admits this (M.B. 32/98), and says that Te Kaho should have been in the Okahu Block, but was omitted along with many others. 3. The Court file for Okahu grant 3749 contains a copy of the grant, dated 22nd May, 1882, but the copy shows an alteration in the name—either from " Raho " to " Kaho " or from " Kaho " to " Raho " —it is not clear which. An original list of owners, however, in the handwriting of the Clerk to the Court gives the name clearly as " Kaho." This list must have been written not later than 1887 —probably considerably before that. 4. On the Court file there is a succession order for Te Kaho (deceased) dated 6th December, 1887, in favour of " Matuhanga (mother of deceased)," thus strongly indicating that at that date it was known or assumed that Te Kaho was the owner entitled, and not Te Raho. On the 28th October, 1910, Chief Judge Jackson Palmer wrote across the above order, " As the deceased is still alive, this order is a nullity." Apparently the Chief Judge was under the impression that the name should have been Te Raho (who was still alive in 1910). There is nothing on record to show upon what evidence the Chief Judge arrived at this conclusion. The evidence leading up to the order of the 6th December, 1887, is very significant. The following extract is from Taranaki M.B. 4, folio 225 : — No. 54. " Okahu, or Sec. 20, Blk. I, Hawera : Rangiwhetu claims to succeed Kaho, grant Vol. 8, folio 138, favour of Kaho and others, for 289 acres, Sec. 20, Blk. I, Hawera S.D. " Rangiwhetu (sworn) said : Kaho is dead—she died in November, 1886. I saw her die. She left no will. I claim for myself alone. Deceased was a daughter of my wife Mutuhanga, who is alive. She is at Okorima. Kaho left no children. " Objectors challenged. None. The Court orders that Mutuhanga shall succeed Kaho (deceased) in Sec. 20, Blk. I, Hawera S.D." It seems clear that Rangiwhetu gave false evidence. Kaho was a man, and not the daughter of Mutuhanga. He died about 1879, and not in 1886. Even if Rangiwhetu thought " Kaho " was a mistake for " Raho," his evidence would still be false, as Te Raho did not die till 1914, and then left issue. 5. It is not likely that Te Raho would be put into the grant for thirty shares, as she must have been only a baby at the time (if she were even born then, which the Court somewhat doubts), and Rangiwhetu was already in for a very large share. It seems hardly likely that such a prominent owner as Te Kaho should be left out and Te Raho, a baby, included. Moreover, if, as is alleged on behalf of the Te Raho family, Rangiwhetu put Te Raho into the grant, why was it that as early as December, 1887 (M.B. 4/225), Rangiwhetu applied for succession to Te Kaho in this block, well knowing that Te Raho was still alive ? 6. The Court, in view of the position as set out above, has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the person originally entitled was Te Kaho, and not Te Raho, and that the proper successors to Te Kaho should have been his issue— i.e., 1/8, Rangitemaha te Kaho, m.a.; 1/8, Wharemamaku, f.a.; 1/8, Kawhena te Kaho, f.a.; 1/8, Rangihawe te Kaho, m.a.; 1/8, Waiata te Kaho, f.a.; 1/8, Pani te Kaho, f.a.; 1/24, Hapaiterangi te Wehi, m.a, ; 1/24, Mereana te Wehi, f.a.; 1/24, Ritihia te Wehi, f.a. ; 1/32, Huriata Tupati, f.a.; 1/32, Mokena Tupati, m.a.; 1/32, Rangiwhakaata Tupati, m.a. ; 1/32, Tawhirimatea Tupati, f.a. 7. The Court accordingly recommends, either— (a.) A clause in this year's " washing-up " Bill cancelling the succession order re Kaho (deceased) dated 6th December, 1887, the Chief judge's minute thereon dated 28th October, 1910, and the succession order re Te Raho (deceased) dated 4th December, 1914, all in re the Okahu grant 3749, and in lieu thereof directing the issue of a succession order for Te Kaho in favour of his issue above mentioned, together with any necessary amendment in the Court records or Native Trustee pay-lists to show that the grantee was Te Kaho and not Te Rahp; or (b.) A direction in this year's " washing-up " Bill to the Native Land Court to reopen the whole matter and to make such orders or amendments as may be required." Dated at Hawera, this 7th day of July, 1922. F. O. V. Acheson, Judge.

Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, not given ; printing (450 copies), £2 7s. Od.

Authority : W. A. G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.—l 922.

Price 3d. ]