Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Important Judgments: Delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court. 1866–1879.

I. Descent

I. Descent.

Most of the witnesses said they were ignorant of the ancestry through which they claimed this property; and I do not remember that any one, except Heteraka, attempted to set forth any pedigree. The answer, usually, was, "I claim through the ancestors mentioned by Heteraka." Now, this pedigree, mostly prepared by Mr. Mackay, and proved by Heteraka, contains the names of the principal chiefs of the Thames tribes now alive; and also shows the connection with Ngatikahu and Ngatipoataniwha, and with Ngatitai. The direct line is the genealogy of Ngatitai; and it is taken up even above Tainui, from whom the name, according to Heteraka, is derived. Now, with the exception of Heteraka's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, with whom Ngatipaoa pretend to have no lateral or descending connection; and except Tarakumikumi, who, with his wife and all his children, was killed, and Kapetawa, who returned seven generations ago to settle in Waiheke, there is not a name in this list of chiefs of any person who is alleged to have lived on this property, excluding of course the present generation. It was attempted to show that Huaokaiwaka was the same person as Hua, the grandfather of Kiwi, but the attempt did not succeed. It will be remembered that, when Heteraka was asked to give his Waiohua pedigree, he commenced with Tangamakaia. This man was stated by witnesses on the other side to be a Ngaiwi, and the father-in-law of Hua, but Heteraka was unable to continue, and said he wanted to begin again. The genealogy which he then set forth is appended to this judgment, and is the one to which I have lately been referring. And we think it has nothing whatever to do with this land, and that the ancestors mentioned in it never had, or pretended to have, any claim to it; page 87and, with the exception of Tarakumikumi and Kapetawa, none of them have been shown ever to have been on it. Nor (except as above) does it show any lateral connection with any person or tribe that ever possessed or lived on the land, or any relationship with any member of the Ngaiwi or Waiohua tribes. In fact, it is the genealogy of distinct tribes, who lived in different places, and possessed different lands. Haora Tipa and the witnesses relied on this ancestry for their claim by descent.

The Court therefore thinks that this ground of their claim fails.