Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

A Compendium of Official Documents Relative to Native Affairs in the South Island. Volume Two.

Purakaunui, or Blueskin Reserve

Purakaunui, or Blueskin Reserve.

The consideration of the applications of Teoti te Waihie and others, for investigation into the Purakaunui reserve, was resumed.

The following evidence was given:—

Walter B. Mantell: When examined in this case before I expressed the opinion that 14 acres per man, woman, and child, would not be excessive. When I took the census, previous to giving the reserve, there were 45 claimants to a division. I cannot say that number has decreased, though many of the original claimants are not there. I think that 14 acres to each of the 45 would not be more than sufficient.

By Mr.Turton: I have seen the sentence, "Ko a Matau mahinga kai" in the original deed. It is translated in the copy, "cultivation." It is not a good translation; and I think a much better one was given by the Interpreter the other day. I would translate the clause thus, "our villages and dwelling places, and our places for procuring or producing food, must be secured for us for ever." The word "Mahinga kai" would, to my mind, include, not only gardens, but pipi grounds, eel weirs fisheries, &c.

W. H. Cutten: I am Chief Commissioner of the Waste Lands of this Province. I produce, from the Survey Office, a map of the Purakaunui reserves. It is signed by Mr. Thomson. The estimated area of one is 242 acres, of the other 28 acres. There is a Government reserve of little more than 101 acres, between the two Native portions. No attempt has been made to dispose of the land, nor is it at present used. The lands have been open for sale since 1863.

By Mr.Turton: I find that the land is marked the same on the Survey Office map and on the original map.

By the Court: I have never seen the deed referred to in these proceedings, and I have never been called upon to fulfil any of the obligations entered into in that covenant. I was once called upon to furnish statistics as to the Native reserves, and I did so.

John Miller: I live at Purakaunui, and have lived there 24 years. I was not there when Mr. Mantell made the reserves. There are old men and many children living there now. There has been a meeting of the Natives, as to the Crown grants in these reserves, and we have agreed that the grant be given to six persons for the benefit of all. (The list of proposed trustees in whom the land was to be vested, and the names of those who had an interest in the land, were read, and assented to by the witness).

Other witnesses were called, who assented to the names as read, and who stated that there was no dispute among the residents at Purakaunui regarding the proposed division.

Upon notice being given that objectors to the claimants' rights would be heard, William Potiki rose and gave notice of opposition on behalf of himself, Tare Wetere te Kahu, and George Grey Taiaroa. The Judge told him that it he was in earnest, he must deposit £5, which would be returned to him if he proved his claim. He did this, and Mr. Turton, to save the time of the Court, consented to conduct the case on his behalf. He stated that his objection was that his own name, the name of George Grey Taiaroa, and Tare, had not been mentioned as trustees, and their names were not inserted in the list of persons amongst whom the land was to be divided. The witness then said: I live at Otago, but my ancestors lived at Purakaunui; they sold the land to Mr. Kemp, and made the reserve. Taiaroa and Tare and others had the same ground of claim. They had lived on the land until the white's came, but when they left it it did not pass into the hands of a tribe. Myself and the other objectors are of equal rank with the six named as trustees. The Purakaunui Natives had always recognized our interest. My ancestors, my fathers, and my elders, lived at Purakaunui. I rest my claim solely upon my ancestors being owners of the ground, and parties to the arrangement with Mr. Kemp.

By Mr.Macassey: I was born at Moeraki. When I got married, then I went to Otago to live. My father lived at Purakaunui. I do not know how long. He told me himself that he lived there. He has been dead two years. I claim to have land at Port Chalmers, Purakaunui, Moeraki, in the Prince's-street reserve, but not in the Taieri. My wife has a claim at the Taieri. I have a claim to Purakaunui through my mother. I am not of the same hapu. I would object to any of the Purakaunui people coming and taking the Otago land. I recollect Mr. Kemp's purchase. Noah was the principal man at Purakaunui. His younger brother Tioti te Wahie is present now. Karetai and Taiaroa lived at the Heads, and Noah at Purakaunui. Ngatawai was the ancestor through whom I claim. I do not want to turn them all off the land; but I want the names of myself and others mentioned in the trust deed. I do not recognize their title; but Mr. Kemp having found them on the land, I am willing they should share.

By the Court: I do not know who pointed out the reserve to Mr. Mantell. I spoke to Mr. Kemp about setting aside a reserve for us at Purakaunui. Mr. Kemp consented, but when asked to go said, "No, another person shall make the reserves." I went to the meetings lately held about this land, I spoke, and I made a claim. The residents did not recognize my claim, but said that the page 233ancestors had nothing to do with the land at the present time, as Mr. Mantell had given it over to them. I am a member of the Ngaitahu tribe. All of us are Ngaitahu. That was the name of the tribe generations back.

By the Assessor: The persons who lived at Purakaunui lived at Kaiapoi. They did not come down at the time that Rauparaha killed the people at Kaiapoi; they came before that. The persons who came from there are now alive. I don't know what right they had to come and live there. There was no opposition made. At the time Mr. Kemp came, I, Karetai, and others, said, "That reserve is for us and our people, and also for the people living at Purakaunui." We received payment for the land; the people living at Purakaunui did not do so. Mr. Kemp came to us to make arrangements about the land. Mr. Kemp put our names down. I do not know that Mr. Mantell wrote down our names at Purakaunui.

Tare Wetere Te Kahu gave similar evidence. He made a claim through his ancestors and his mother. He had lived at Purakaunui with his mother. The residents their did not recognise their claim.

John Topi Patuki: I have no claim to that land. The two last witnesses have. We belong to the same hapu, but they have a claim through their mother.

W. B. Mantell: Noah and Haereroa are signers of the deed (Kemp's). Noah's people lived at Purakaunui, the others at Waikouaiti. Part of the money was paid to those persons for distribution, as I understand at Purakaunui. The reserves at Purakaunui were set apart by me for the persons resident on them, and such as they might voluntarily admit. I acted on this principle, and I believe the people so understood it. I told them that strangers should not jump their reserves, without consent of the residents. Potiki, Tare, and Taiaroa were not those for whom the reserve was made.

Mr. Macassey urged that as the only claim set up by Potiki and the others, was, by virtue of their ancestors having inherited the land, the Court could not entertain it. The same point had been raised in Christchurch, and the Court had held that where the estate and interest of the tribe had been purchased by the representative of the Crown, it was necessary to prove a much stronger title. As to the claim made by residents on the reserve, the evidence of Mr. Mantell showed the quantity of land to which they were entitled. He had said that he considered that at least they were entitled to 14 acres a head for every person there, when he took the census, namely, 45; and he felt confident the Court would feel itself bound to grant so much.

Mr.Turton said that, after reading the recent judgment delivered in Christchurch, he felt that it would be useless to contend that Potiki had set up a satisfactory claim. On behalf of the Crown, he was instructed to say that no opposition would be made to the claims before the Court, the evidence clearly showing that the Natives were entitled to liberal compensation.

The Chief Judge, after consultation with the Assessor, said that the Court was of opinion that Potiki had unmistakeably failed to establish any interest in the claim. The Court had, in Christchurch, refused to recognize a similar claim, and unless a much stronger case was made out than simply being entitled on account of ancestors having lived on the land, they would not succeed. The reserve at Purakaunui had been set aside for Natives residing there, and the evidence clearly showed that neither Potiki nor the other objectors were in any manner interested in it. None of them had lived there, and the Court had already decided that it would not entertain claims made simply on account of ancestors having lived there before the interest of the tribe had been purchased by the Crown. It was satisfactory to find that the representative of the Attorney-General and the Commissioner of Crown Lands had expressed no desire to oppose the claim. The evidence clearly showed that the Natives were entitled to the compensation they sought, and it was pleasing that the Crown did not oppose. Mr. Mantell's evidence was overwhelming, and all would be convinced that the Natives were not claiming more than they were entitled to, the allowance of 14 acres per soul, and judgment would be given to that effect. As to the establishment of hospitals, &c., it was an obligation of honour. If the Government thought fit to make some compensation for not having erected these, it would only be right. The Court would even say that it was of opinion that the Government should make such an allowance.

The Court was adjourned until Wednesday.