Other formats

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


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 70


page 1

This important case, which was begun at Hastings on the 25th February, before the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court and Judge Scannell, Mr Ormsby acting as Assessor, was concluded on the 17th instant. There were three parties before the Court, but the contest practically was between Mrs Donnelly, Tareha, and others of Ngatikahungunu, on the one side, and Mr Broughton, Noa Huke, Atareta Hokahoka, and others, of Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu, on the other. Sir Robert Stout, with him Mr M'Lean and Mr Lewis, appeared for Mrs Donnelly and her co-claimants, and Mr W. L. Rees, with him Mr A, Bees and Mr Fraser, for the Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu, who claimed the main portion of the block on the grounds of ancestry and occupation. The remainder of the block they claimed by virtue of a gift alleged to have been made to them by Te Moananui, when he visited Manawatu in 1848. Mrs Donnelly and her coclaimants denied that any gift had been made by Te Moananui, and claimed the whole block by ancestry and occupation. The other counter claimants were Wiramina Ngahuka and others of Ngatimahu, for whom Aperahama To Kume appeared. The following is a report of Sir Robert Stout's Address to the Court:—

I propose to divide my address into several heads. The first I shall take up is that of what principles should be followed by the Court in dealing with this case. Some of the quotations I intended to make have been made by my friend Mr Rees, and I shall therefore refer only briefly to those.

I submit that the Court must, in accordance with its own decisions, or, to use the phrase of the late Chief Judge Fenton, its own year books, imagine itself to be sitting in 1841, and find who were then entitled. I do not deny its right to look at what has taken place since 1840, but only if that can throw any light on prior events. This question has been threshed out and decided finally—that the Court must imagine itself to be sitting in 1841, otherwise it would be doing a wrong to the natives, and setting the whole native land law at large. That is one principle that I submit your Honors have to deal With. The other principle is this—as to what occupation means, and I submit that the mere fact of people cultivating the lands of other tribes, if the tribes are in friendship, is no proof of ownership, and therefore whether all these parties were in possession of Omahu or not, so long as Ngaiteupokoiri were in friendship with the real owners, their evidence of possession or of cultivating is no proof of title, and in support of my contention I will cite several cases. The passage in the Oakura case which was cited by my friend bears out the contention 1 have submitted to the Court. (Oakura; Fenton, C. J., Rogan and Monro, J. J., 10).

"We do not think it can reasonably be maintained that/the British Government came to this colony to improve Maori titles, or to reinstate persons in possessions from which they had been expelled before 1840, or which they had voluntarily abandoned previously to that time. Having found it absolutely necessary to fir some point of time at which the titles, as far as this Court is concerned, must be rewarded as settled, we have decided that that point of time must be the establishment of the British Government in 1841, and all persons who are proved to have been the actual owners or possessors of land at that time, must (with their successors) be regarded as the owners or possessors of those lands now, except in cases where changes of ownership or possession have subsequently taken place with the consent, expressed or tacit, of the Government, or without its actual interference to prevent these changes.

"Compelled by absolute necessity to lay down a rule for our guidance as to the time and circumstances when the ownership or title of expelled owners could rightly be regarded as having terminated, we can find no other rule to establish than the one now expressed, and we have endeavored to adhere to it as as a fixed rule for our inquiries under the New Zealand Settlements Acts, where the questions at issue are matters purely between the Crown and a portion of the Maori subjects. Of course the rule cannot be so strictly applied in the Native Lands Court, where the questions to be tried are the rights between the Maoris inter se, but even in that Court the rule is adhered to except in rare instances. If greater latitude is allowed, and the date of ownership permitted to be variable, the confusion will be such as to render any solution of this great question, upon any principle of justice, perfectly hopeless."

It will be remembered that in, the Oakura case the Court was sitting to determine who were to obtain [unclear: como] page 2 sation from the Government for the lands taken, and therefore the Court has to read, along with the remarks I have just quoted, the other passages to which I intend to refer, as to occupation; therefore this passage is strongly in our favor. The other passages that have a bearing on this point I shall now refer to. The next case I shall cite is that of Orakei, in which the decision was given by the late Chief Judge Fenton. There are several passages in that judgment bearing out the same principle, but, I submit, rather carrying it further. On page 94 his Honor says: "The Court quite agrees with Mr Gillies that Heteraka has Kept his claim alive. And we also concur that the Court should 'imagine itself to be sitting in 1841,' and we have endeavored to do so. Doubtless the 30 years' possession by Apihai must be allowed to have weight, but principally because we find that it has been undisputed except by Heteraka, whose right to dispute has been considered, and because we find that that possession was founded on anterior rights which have never been overtly questioned until now (except as above-named by Heteraka). We can easily imagine cases where equally undisturbed possession for an equally long period would avail nothing in this Court, where there is nothing on which it is based; and we have even such cases appearing in this trial, where indeed no claim is urged; as, for example, Te Hapimana and Te Keene Tangaroa. It would be a very dangerous doctrine for this Court to sanction that a title to native lands can be created by occupation since the establishment of English sovereignty and professedly of English law, for we should then be declaring that those tribes who had not broken the law by using force in expelling squatters on their lands, must be deprived pro tanto of their rights. The precedents are all the other way, and are founded in reason. And as no Court existed in the country by which such trespasses could be tried and the true ownership of land ascertained, a peaceful protest against the occupation, or an assertion of a hostile or concurrent right, made at a sufficiently early period, must be held to have been all that the counter claimant was required to do to keep alive his rights, and indeed all that he lawfully could do." I will refer also to the decision of Judge Heale in the Paengaroa case (page 143), where he says that "the function of the Native Land Court is to ascertain who were the absolute masterful owners of the land at the time of the advent of the British Government, and the persons to whom those rights have now descended." At page 59 and page 68 of the Orakei judgment there are passages to the same effect. "This Court has no common law to direct its steps by; in fact it has by its own operations to make its common law, and to establish 'year books,' which may in the course of time afford a code of law to which appeal may be made for guidance in deciding all questions which may come before it. * * * I do not remember that any claims have been established in this Court solely on the ground of modern occupation without reference to some 'take' of old days."

I shall rely on that to shew that the English doctrine of possession and prescription has nothing to do with the Native Land Court The English doctrine of possession and prescription has always assumed that a prior grant has issued. Here there can never be that assumption. The Native Land Court is specially constituted to determine who is to obtain the title from the Crown; therefore the common law of England can have no application whatever in questions of ownership of native lands. If a Maori has been in possession of land from the year 1840, that would not prove his title, for there was no machinery known to the law by which he could prove his right The Supreme Court has no machinery to decide the title and therefore the English doctrine of possession can have no application to native land. This no doubt was the meaning of Chief Judge Fenton when he said in one of the passages. I have referred to that the Native Land Court must make its own common law and establish year books. That he admitted this principle is clear from the state meat? on page 68 of the Orakei judgment that no claims have been established in this Court solely on the ground of modern occupation.

As I shall show afterwards, my learned friend knows that modern occupation is of no avail, so he sets up Te Moananui's gift. I will put it to the Court more strongly. We would not have heard a single word of Te Moananui's gift if Ngaitenpokoiri had any ancestral right to rely on. My friend repeated time after time that the shedding of Hawea's blood had made the land tapu, and that it had passed out of the hands of Ngaiteupokoiri until the removal of the tapu by Te Moananui. His own witnesses even knew nothing of this removal of the tapu, and therefore he is forced to rely on Te Moananui's gift. If this Court had been sitting in 1841 no claim could have been made under a gift by Te Moananui.

At pages 81 and 82 of the Orakei judgment the same principle is laid down—that no modern occupation can confer a title unless founded on some previous "take" of which the occupation can be regarded as a consequence and partly as page 3 a proof Violence even could not affect the title. This is laid down at page 86 of the Orakei judgment. At page 89 the question of modern occupation is again referred to.

"No modern occupation can avail anything in establishing a title that has not for its foundation or authority either conquest or descent from previous owners, except of course in the case of gifts or voluntary concessions by the existing owners. Such occupation is called by the natives 'he noho noa iho' (equivalent to our word 'squatting.')"

I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to any more passages on this point, but I will refer to some of the more modern judgments in which the same principle is laid down. The principle is affirmed by the decision on the applications for rehearing in the Mangaohane ease. My point also is this—that in that case the Chief Judge adopted the argument of counsel for Renata Kawepo, who was one of the applicants for this investigation, that nothing done by Renata since 1840 could affect his title. I will quote from the decision of the Chief Judge—

"There is in the judgment a quotation of the no doubt well-deserved panegyric bestowed in the Pukehamoamoa decision upon Kawepo, the usefulness of which, however, in relation to the matter in hand, I fail to detect. This quotation seems to have been made in reference to the contention of loss of title resulting from captivity, but as the effect contended for was held not to have ensued, reference to conduct, however meritorious, which taking place after 1840, could not, as Dr. Buller fairly put it, 'either augment or dotract from his right' was unnecessary and possibly misleading."

The late Chief Judge then assumed that the argument advanced by Renata's counsel was correct. Then in the decision on the Porangahau case there is this passage—" It has certainly been laid down in former Courts that no right arising since 1840 will be recognised, and this Court has no intention of contravening that rule."

I have quoted Chief Judge Fenton, Chief Judge Macdonald, Judge Rogan, Judge Monro, Judge Heale, Judge Mackay, and Judge Scannell, and I will now quote Judge Wilson. He says in his decision on the Ohaoko case ". . . nor can any line of action pursued since 1840, viz., since the Treaty of Waitangi, alter the native right of ownership of this land."

I therefore submit that this Court is bound by its own common law which it has made by its decisions—that the Court cannot look upon occupation since 1840 as proving anything unless something beyond occupation can be shown. Even if English law were to apply, this occupation would be of no avail, for it is admitted that there were others than Ngaiteupokoiri living on this block. It cannot be denied that Karauria lived and had cultivations there. There is the evidence of Mr Heslop that Karauria exercised rights over this block by impounding the cattle which were running on it. Mr Heslop also gives evidence as to Harauria's cultivation. It is not denied that Tareha fished and exercised rights of ownership on the block. What is the English law? It is this, that if two persons are in a field, each in possession and each exercising rights of ownership, then the field belongs to the person that has the legal title, and the occupation counts for nothing. This is laid down by Mr Justice Maule in the case of Jones v. Chapman (2 Exch. 803.) The law in New Zealand, as in England, cannot allow parties to Kettle their differences by violence. So far therefore as this occupation is concerned, it is clear on the admission of the Ngaiteupokoiri witnesses that on two occasions Karauria denied their rights. He occupied inconsistently with their occupation. The Court them has to determine who has the legal title.

While on this point I will refer to another passage in thee Orakei judgment. At page 68 the Chief Justice says, "The Rev. Dr. Maunsell gave important testimony as to the habits of Maoris cultivating the lands of other tribes while in a state of friendship." And we have the evidenœe also which is not denied, in this suit, that Renata lived at Pawhakairo and erected a weatherboard house there. There is the evidence of Archdeacon Williams that this house was outside of the pa, and that just before the Omarunui fight the Ngaiteupokoiri made entrenchments round Renata'a house. It cannot be denied that Renata lived also at Awapuni and other places, none of which could have been claimed by him. There is ample evidence of Renata's residence at Pawhakairo. Ho dated letters from there, and as appears from the blue books which have been put in, he was met there by Government officers, and regarded as a resident of that place; but that occupation did not give him any claim to Pawhakairo, and further, he went there to live with the people who are said to have invited him back. If Renata has made a claim at Omahu, so too have Tareha and Karauria. Then there is a contest, and the Court must see how the evidence hangs together as affecting both. There is another passage in the Orakei judgment which has an important bearing in reference to Maori politeness in inviting people who are their friends to live with them. The passage I refer to is this:—

"One can well understand, therefore, how, after peace had been formally con- page 4 cluded, and the ancient feeling of amity restored, the Taou chief would exclaim to his host, when he came to pay him a friendly visit in the evening, 'I can now return without anxiety to my old home.' To which the other would reply, 'Certainly, why should you not go to your own place?' And even if Kahukoti had replied 'Yes, return there and light a fire for both of us.' I can see nothing in the words beyond the polite expression which is usually given by the Maoris to their language when talking with people of rank with whom they are in friendship. When travelling with a Maori in his canoe, he never speaks of 'my canoe"; the phrase is always 'to Una waka,' 'the cance of us two,' and if his guest smokes he will give or ask for' to taua paipa,' whether it belongs to himself or to you; and if you live on his land, he will speak to you of 'to taua kainga,' without the slightest idea of conferring any title upon you. And this expression 'tahuna he ahi ma taua.'—would (even if used) mean no more than a civil way of expressing that he should he glad to see Te Taou Jiving at Ikahu, for he would be then often able to come and see them and accept their hospitality."

This shows how expressions used by Maoris about land are to be dealt with; and when Judge Monro had occasion to deal with a case of this nature, he found that, although there had been occupation by certain people, yet there was no title, and he therefore awarded them only fifteen acres, to inclnde their cultivations, as a sort of concession. (Waihi case, p. 100.)

I submit that almost all the Judges of the Native Land Court have laid down the same principle, which I may sum up in this way:—

1st. That the Court must sit and decide as if it were sitting in 1841.

2nd. In dealing with occupation, if it be the occupation of land of a friendly tribe, the Court cannot infer from that occupation any title.

Taking therefore these two grounds of what may be termed the legal position, I shall proceed to sketch shortly the history of this block and of the neighboring blocks. There can be no doubt that Tarais. I did make a conquest of a great part of the land in Heretaunga. As to Taraia II., there no doubt also was a conquest made by him. All parties with the exceptioa of Wiramina say that Taraia I. made a conquest over Tarauwha, and that the descendants of these two intermarried. As to where the boundary of Taraia It really was, I submit that I shall show, from the evidence in this case, and the decision in the adjoining block, Pukehamoamoa, that Taraia, Hinehore, and Hikateko never had absolute and undisturbed possession of this block. This block seems to have been one that was lying between perhaps three parties; on the Tutsekuri side were Ngatihinepare, and on the side towards Ngaruroro were Ngaiteupokoir. As my friend put it, this may have been a disputed and contested piece of land.

Mr Rees: I did not say that. What I did say was that the shedding of Hawea's blood and the making tapu of Otupaopao was the cause of continual fighting.

Sir Robert Stout: My friend refers to the shedding of Hawea's blood as often as Mr Pick referred to King Charles's head. But the fair way to put the thing is the way in which my friend put it, and I am quite willing to accept that. The evidence shows that there was incessant fighting about this block and on this block. I will show that it was the attempt of Ngaiteupokoiri to obtain this Hand that led to their defeat at Paratuna, and later on at Rotoatara. It means that this had been practically a disputed piece of land and had been claimed by three sections of the people, by Te Rangikamangungu, by Ngatihinepare, and occasionally by Ngaiteuppokoiri, who made incursions into it, but were always defeated and driven off. Let us see what the history shows of the various events which the (Court has to look at, taking them as neearly as possible in their chronological order.

After the time of Taraia. I and Taraia IX, the first evennt of importance was the wounding of Hawea, which took place about the end of the last century. Now, what was that event? Who was Hawea a fighting for at the time? That lets a flood of light in upon this question. Hawea, had come to the assistance of Te Rangikamangungu; that I submit there can be no doubt about. And with whom was he fighting? He was fighting with the people living on the Omarurunui side, and it was there he was woundded. He was not wounded on the land which is said to have been made tapu;; but, further than that, not a single witness has been called to show that the Ngaiteupokoiri took any part at all in the fighting which led to his wounding. Can it for one moment be believed that, if this had been Ngaiteupokoiri Island, it would have been made tapu on account of the wounding of a man in a quarrel in which they had no concern, and which several of their witnesses say had no relation whatever to Otupao, the land which is said to have been made tapu? What then is the only inference to draw? It is this: A great chief has been wounded; he has been wounded in an attempt to assist Te Rangikamangungu, and therefore Te Rangikamangungu gives him landed as payment or compensation for his wounding. If the land had only been made tapu, that did not mean that Hawes was to enter into possession and occupy. Their own page 5 witnesses admit that Whakato, Hawea's son, lived at Te Rae o Tahumata; and that Hawea and his descendants lived on several parts of the block and had fishings there. I understand that if land is made tapu it is not to be used as ordinary land. But we have evidence that this land was used as ordinary land; as people lived on it, and used the streams and lakes for fishing purposes.

The next thing that happens is a feast said to have been given by Ngaiteupokoiri at Te Arawhata a Tikumu, and my learned friend says that this is a proof that Ngaiteupokoiri owned the land. Is it usual to give feasts on tapu land? My friend's theory is that the tapu was still existing when the feast was given, and if Hawea owned any part of the land he owned the place where the feast was held.

I submit that that makes the thing entirely inconsistent, The tapu had not been removed, and the land was Hawea's. How, then, can the holding of this feast be any evidence of a title in Ngaiteupokoiri? This feast took place probably about the year 1810. If it were before the Paratuna fight it must have been about that time. We will assume, however, that those witnesses are correct who say it was after Paratuna. This feast is said to have been held to celebrate the peacemaking, but one of the witnesses in this Court says that there was a fight near Napier in revenge for Paratuna, and fighting was in fact continued to the time of the flight of Ngaiteupokoiri to Manawatu. Who were slain in the Paratuna fight, and who were the slayers? Is not that sufficient to let in a flood of light on the possession of this land at that period? According to the evidence of some of their own witnesses the Ngaiteupokoiri had come from Ruahine when they were defeated at Paratuna. Another witness said they had come from Patea, and another said they had come from across this block. At all events the people who were slain at Paratuna had not been living on this block. As soon as they crossed the Oingo lake they were attacked by the people who were in possession, the descendants of Hawea and Te Rangikamangungu, and defeated with great slaughter. It will be remembered also that a post was erected at the place where one of the Ngaiteupokoiri chiefs was killed. What is the meaning of that, if it is not that Ngaiteupokoiri went there to make a claim to the land, and that their claim was objected to by the people in possession? The Ngaiteupokoiri were slain, and slain by the people of Hawea and Te Rangikamaugu. Can the Court say, in the face of that, that the land belonged to Ngaiteupokoiri?

After this there was the attack on Otaporoto in Patea, which took place about the year 1829. It is not denied that Ngaiteupokoiri were in that pa when it was attacked by Ngati Raukawa, and that is strong evidence that at that time they could not have been in possession of this land. About two years after Otaparoto came the Whitiotu fight, an important engagement in which Ngaiteupokoiri and their allies were defeated by Ngatikahungunu and Ngapuhi. It is in evidence that shortly after the return of Ngapuhi and Ngatikahungunu from Whitiotu, a woman was impaled by Te Hauwaho at Hauhau on the Omahu block. Does not that show right to the land, and does it not also show possession?

The next event was the Rotoatara fight about the year 1833. According to the evidence of one of the Ngaiteupokoiri witnesses, that tribe had come to Rotoatara with the object of taking laud in Heretaunga, but they were again defeated by Ngatikahungunu and Ngapuhi, and fled to Patea, Taupo, and Manawatu. That was the position down to 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and I submit that if this Court had been sitting in 1841 it would have found Ngaiteupokoiri dispersed and driven away from the district, and Ngatikahungunu exercising rights of ownership on this block, Of all Ngaiteupokoiri, Nos Huke was the only one who remained in Heretaunga, and ho has given evidence that he was living with Te Moananui, an indeed we do not deny. But there is the evidence of Renata Kawepo in another block, as to the nature of Noa's residence here. He says that Noa was a man of no influence, and was living under Te Moananui. All this clearly shows that up to the year 1840 the people who had a certain title to this were Ngatihawea and Ngaite Rangikamangungu. Of that I submit there can be no doubt. Hawea and Te Rangikamangungu were the two people who asserted rights to this block. Whether their title was good or bad, there can be no doubt that they asserted rights to the land by collecting food on it and using it for fishing purposes. It was only long after the advent of British sovereignty that there was occupation by Ngaiteupokoiri. Here was a block of land that was occupied by Ngatihawea and Ngaite Rangikamangungu as Maoris occupy land; and this same kind of occupancy is that on which Renata Kawepo and his people have relied to get awarded to them by the Native Land Court a vast tract of territory extending over a hundred miles. What was the evidence of occupation, in the adjoining block of Pukehamoamos, which was awarded to Renata and this people? What is held to bo sufficient evidence of occupancy? I submit that up to 1840 Ngatihawes and Ngaite [unclear: Raban] [unclear: gikamangungu] were in occupation on of page 6 this land. At all events, they were in occupation of Oingo and Otupaopao to the exclusion of everyone else.

The next event is the arrival of Renata Kawepo from the Bay of Islands in 1844. Where does he Jive on his return? He does not go near Omahu. If that had been the ancestral home of Ngaiteupokoiri he would surely have settled there. The admission of the other side is that he was not settled there until at all events after the visit of Te Moananui to Manawatu in 1848. He was not settled there whilst Ngaitenpokoiri were at Manawatu. The excuse offered by my learned friend is that Renata was a clergyman, and was kept at Awapuni and other places in that vicinity, paying attention to his clerical duties. I submit that the evidence is perfectly clear that even down to the time of the Pakiaka fight, 1857, there were not more than two or three whares at Omahu, and I shall show, from independent European testimony, that even in 1861 there was hardly any settlement at Omahu. There is the evidence of Mr Locke, who knew Renata very well, and met him frequently, and if the Court is driven to make a selection of evidence, it will surely take the evidence of Europeans who had no interest in the case.

What next happens is the visit of Te Moananui to Manawatu in 1848, and so far as the evidence shows, there were only two families who retnrned with him, not more. Renata has said, in another case, that the people would not come back on Te Moananui's invitation, and that it was only when he himself went to bring them back that the people returned. Then Renata makes his first visit to Manawatu shortly before the Waipukurau sale, which was in 1851, and then the Ngaiteupokoiri returned slowly after Renata's visit—from 1851 to 1864. They did not return to Otupaopao. Even Hoani Te Koari never went to Otupaopao—the very man who, according to some of the witnesses, mentioned the name Otupaopao to Te Moananui at Manawatu. It is in evidence that Hoani Te Koari, on his return from Manawatu, went first to live at Tareha's place, Awatoto, and then to Paepaetahi, where he died.

The next event of importance after 1851 was the Pakiaka fight, which began in 1857. The fighting lasted a considerable time, there being three engagements, and peace was ultimately proclaimed in 1858. In these hostilities the land-selling chiefs were on one aide, and the non selling chiefs on the other. It is important to notice that Mr G. S. Cooper, in his letters to the Government, refers to Te Hapuku and Te Moananui as the leaders of the respective factions. He does not exalt Renata to the prominent place which is claimed for him in this case, Renata, to use his own words, was simply their general;" he was their fighting man After this there happened what is known as the Shirley incident. This is or importance only as showing whew Senate was living at that time. He was then described by Mr Crosbie Ward in a report to the Government as a chief of Pawhakairo. This was in 1862. The Government reports of that year, which appear in the blue books that have been put in, are sufficient to show that at that time Senate's chief home was at Pawhakairo. That is where his house was built, and where he principally lived. I do not deny that he had cultivations at Omahu, just the same as Tareha and Karauria had cultivations there, but Renata's cultivations were only at old Omahu, close to the mouth of the Ohiwia stream.

The next incident is the first burial of any person at Te Rae o Tahumata in 1862. How can it be said that this burial can give any title to the land? People must be buried somewhere, and this tribe Ngaiteupokoiri was so broken and scattered by war that for many years they had no fixed burial place, but buried their dead wherever they happened to die. It is important to notice that it is not until 1862 that they begin to bury at Te Rae o Tahumata, and my learned friend asks the Court sitting now to find that the burial of Ngaiteupokoiri people, not before 1863, at a pa which belonged to Hawea, and in which his son Whakato lived, as is admitted by their own witnesses, is a proof of the title of Ngaiteupokoiri. It is simply absurd and ridiculous in the extreme to say that any right can be given to Ngaiteupokoiri by the burial of their people at that place since 1862, when the Ngatihawea had occupied that pa. When peace was proclaimed amongst the natives of this district they lived at each other's places, and their dead were buried all over; the country, without any reference to the ownership of the burial place. One thing is certain, that Te Rae o Tahumata was not the ancient burial place of Ngaiteupokoiri. We hare pot been told where their old cemetery is, but it is certain that they had no burials at Te Rae o Tahumata before 1862.

About this time the Runanga system was introduced in this district by Sir George Grey, and reports in connection with it were sent by officers to the Government. I refer to these only to show where Renata's residence was at that time. In these reports Renata is described as a chief of Pawhakairo. In the blue-books of the same year there is an important report from Mr Donaldson, who had been appointed to arrange the establishment of native schools in the Heretaunga district. In this repot he names all the principal page 7 settlements at which the, natives resided, and Omahu is not mentioned, so there could not have been a settlement of any importance there until after 1863. There were only a few whares, and people no doubt went there occasionally to fish and to attend to their cultivations, but that was all. At this time also Renata was writing letters from Pawhakairo, as appears from the files of the Hawkr's Bay Herald which have been put in.

At some time between 1860 and 1865 Karauria's protests against the occupation of Renata and Ngaiteupokoiri took place; and afterwards, in 1888, the Waipiropiro block went through the Court, under the same title as that which we now claim, when there was no objection on the part of Renata or his people. My learned friend explains that Renata had given this piece of land Waipiropiro, to Tareha and Karauria. Is that likely? Not a single witness has said so. Some witnesses indeed have said that lines were laid down, but not that there was any gift. Again soma of the Ngaiteupokoiri witnesses said that Waipiropiro was not a part of Otupaopao, while others said it was. The Court, however, has seen the boundary between Otupaopao and Waipiropiro, which is simply a straight line running across the flat, and it is utterly ridiculous to say that there was any ancestral boundary there. It is perfectly clear that Waipiropiro must have been part of Otupaopao, and it was awarded by the Court to Tareha and Karauria under the same title as that under which we are claiming now. None of Ngaiteupokoiri made any claim whatever to Waipiropiro when that block was before the Court; and how is that to be explained, if they thought they had any right there? I submit there is no explanation.

I omitted to mention one important event, and that is this: When Renata's son was born there was a gift made by Te Moananui to Renata of an eel weir for the use of his son. I submit that fact alone is sufficient to dispose of Ngaiteupokoiri's case, because the contention of the other side is that Te Moananui's gift or removal of tapu restored this land to Ngaiteupokoiri. Why did Renata then need the gift of an eel weir from Te Moananui? The thing is simply impossible to reconcile. And there is more than that irreconcilable in the theory advanced by the other side. There can be no dispute that up to the time of Te Moananui's death, and also up to the time of Tareha's death, both of them exercised rights of ownership over this land by fishing, &c. Noa Huke himself admits this. How then is the Court to say that there was a gift? It could not have been a gift if both Te Moananui and Tareha were in occupation. If a chief gives land he does not remain an owner of it. So far as Tareha and Te Moananui were concerned there was no difference in their occupancy. There was the same right of ownership insisted on by both.

The next thing that happens is Mrs. Donnelly's marriage in 1878. It has been suggested that it was owing to European influence that all this trouble has arisen. If my learned friend wants a light thrown on the cause of that trouble it is to be found in the hostility displayed against Mrs Donnelly on, account of her marriage. Tareha was against it, and Renata seems to have conceived an antipathy to her, although there were no doubt reconciliations between them, for Renata himself, in the Pukohamoamoa case, says that he was quite willing to admit Mrs Donnelly and her mother, but his objection was against Mr Donnelly. This perhaps explains why it is, that Renata and Ngaiteupokoiri wished to deprive her of rights from Te Rangikamangungu and force her into an inferior position with themselves. If the Ngaiteupokoiri had been certain that their title was a good one, why did they murder this poor man Turanga? He was a Ngaiteupokoiri, and surely had as much right to cultivate where he did as Broughton or any of them, and yet he was shot for ploughing on land which was admittedly his own. This not only shows the state of enmity between the parties, but it also, I submit, shows this—that so shaky was the Ngaiteupoioiri title that they were afraid this ploughing would injure them when the case came before the Court, and they were in a state to rescrt to any thing.

Referring to Mrs Donnelly's application for the investigation of the title to the block sent in in 1880 in Which the hapus are given as Ngaihinehore and Ngatihinemoa it must b remembered that Mrs Donnelly was [unclear: quite] young at that time. The application is in the writing of Mr Hamlin, [unclear: nd] Mrs Donnelly probably left the natter to him. In 1882 there was another Application sent in, and in this application the hapu is given as Ngaite Rangiamangungu—the same hapu as that brough which we aro now claiming. This was nine years before the "whakaritena" with the witnesses, at which Hamna says it was decided to claim from [unclear: the] Rangikamangungu. This "whakantenga" I take to mean simply hearing the witnesses and briefing their evidence. Does my friend tell me that his witnesses have not met and talked over their evience and had it briefed? Why in thi very case we have Hamana's statemer taken down by Mr Fraser through Mr Hamlin's interpretation. The point however, is this: that at this [unclear: meeting] of which Hamana speaks, there was no [unclear: mention] page 8 of any gift by Te Moananui of Otupaopao. They knew nothing of it, and it was not discussed as they had never heard of it. Surely if it had been anticipated that Ngaiteupokoiri would claim a gift of Otupaopao by Te Moananui, the matter would hare been discussed, and evidence sought to bring against it; but there was nothing of the kind. In the application of 1882 the hapu is given as Ngaite Rangikamangangu, and there is no suggestion of any arrangement then. Of all the witnesses who have given evidence as to what took place at Manawatu, not one of Mrs Donnelly's witnesses has sworn that there was a gift of land. It is true that, according to some of them, Hoani Te Koari asked if he might return to Otupaopao, and that Te Moananui assented, but there is no word of a gift Of the ten witnesses who speak of what took place on the occasion of Te Moananui's visit to Manawatu, five are on one side and four on the other. Paora Kaiwhata may be said to be on both, but I think we may say that he is on ours on this point. This is the evidence on which the Court is asked to find that a gift was made. Of the ten witnesses who speak of it, five say that Otupaopao was not mentioned by Te Moananui, and I shall show, further, that of the five witnesses on whom they rely, not two agree. One swears that Otupaopao was given back—nothing more. That is what Anaru Te Wanikau has said in this Court. Hoana Pakapaka says that the whole land was given back as far as Ruahine, and the evidence of the other witnesses is equally contradictory, That is all I have to say on the historical part of the case.

I propose now to show that the contention of the other side that the whole of this piece of land should be considered as one block is in direct violation of the evidence even of their own witnesses, and that at least three blocks are spoken of as separate by the witnesses—in fact, I may say that four blocks are spoken of, viz., Kawera, Matatanumia, Oingo, and Otupaopao; and that though some of the witnesses differ a little in the boundaries, yet they all recognise three or four blocks. Not only do they recognise these blocks as being different by name and occupation, but they also recognise them as belonging by ancestry to different sets of people.

I shall take the Kawera block first, and there are no less than eleven witnesses who speak of Kawera as being a separate block. Of these eleven witnesses who speak of it as a separate block, five of them are witnesses for Ngaiteupokoiri, four of them are ours, and two of them are outside either party, viz., Wiramina and Hamana. 80 that I may put it strongly, and assuming that the Court were to strike out all the evidence given on behalf of the parties for whom I appear, yet, on the evidence of the other side, the Court will be bound to find that these were separate blocks, with separate titles, and that if Te Moananui's gift be excluded Ngaiteupokoiri have no right. I shall deal with Kawera first, and will give the references in the Court minutes of the evidence of each witness. The first witness is Te Teira, who says (Vol. 19, p. 39) that Hawera gave Kawera to Tuhotoariki, in consequence of the latter having been attacked by Ngatihawea. On page 40 he says that Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea did not lose their mana by this gift, but the descendants of Tuhotoariki and Hawea lived together, and that Pakapaka had a right under this gift. I cite this for two points. First, to show that Kawera was recognised as a separate block; and secondly, to show that Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka had rights under (he gift from Hawea. That has a bearing on another point, because some of their witnesses, Hoana Pakapaka and others, say that the shedding of Hawea's blood affected his right to Kawera, as well as to Otupaopao. At page 57, Te Teira says that only Kawera was given to Tuhotoariki; and, at cage 70, he says that Maata Te Hei, Tuhotoariki's sister, remained at Ruahine, and did not come on to the land. Then I come to the evidence of To Meihana (vol 19, p. 116). He gives an account of the attack on Tuhotoariki by Ngati Hawea, and goes on to say "Hawea said 'Leave the place for my nephew,' and thereupon Kawera came into the possession of Tuhotoariki. The eel weirs and land in the vicinity were given." At page 157, he says that Tuhotoariki lived at Kawera on account of his wives, who had a right. These of course are both our witnesses. Raniera says (vol. 19, p. 206) that Tuhotoariki had a right to Kawera from his wives, and on page 207 he gives a boundary of Kawera, commencing at Te Hemo going up the Tipua stream, and over the Kawera range to Ohineumu. Mrs Donnelly (vol 19, p. 266) says "Tuhotoariki married two women of Ngati Hineiao, a hapu under Te Rangikamangunga and Hawea, and lived at Kawera. At page 267 she gives an account of the attack on Tuhotoariki by Ngati Hawera, and on page 268 she gives the boundaries of the land which was given to Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka by Hawea. These are alt the witnesses that I rely upon on our side, who say that Kawera was a separate division, and that it was given by Hawea to Tuhotoariki, and his sister Pakapaka, who was living with him. I now cite the evidence of two witnesses who are against our claim of Tuhotoariki's right to Kawera, brat who still admit that Kawera is a sepparate block.

page break

Wiramina says (vol. 18, p. 300), "Tuhotoariki did live on the part I claim at Kawera, but it was on account of his wives. . . . Kawera did not come into the possession of Tuhotoariki, who returned to Taumataohe." I cite this as showing that Wiramina recognised Kawera as a separate block. Hamana says (vol. 19, p. 19), "I hare heard of a gift to Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka, but I did not hear who made the gift. ... I heard that Kawera was the name of the land given." I now take the evidence of witnesses on the other side, and there are no less than five of their witnesses who speak of Tuhotoariki's rights, and or Kawera as a separate block. There is, first, the evidence of Paora Kaiwhata. He says (vol. 19, fol. 534), "Otupaopao and Kawera are two separate places. They are separated by a lake, Oingo. Cannot give the boundary in detail, having nothing to do with Otupaopao. When Hawea was wounded my elders came and lived at Puketapu pa and abandoned our claim through strong hand, and Otupaopao became the property of Ngatikahungunu—Airini's people. I have nothing further to say about that piece of land. It belongs to Airini, whose mana is good there. From the bridge to Hauhau and on to Totara belongs to Kawakawa, Haemania, and Pakapaka. They made the boundary. The portion east of the boundary belongs to Airini." The Court will see that he separates Kawera, although he cannot give the boundaries. At page 540 he says that the boundary of Kawera begins at Ohinepaaka, thence to Kawera at the bridge, Te Whakapaku, Rangitahi, Okawa, Awangarara, Oreore, Ngamahanga, along the boundary of Pirau to Matahorua, along the Kawera range to Te Horo, and thence to Ohinepaaka. He purports to give the boundary, and he says, on the same page, that he never heard that any portion of this block was given to Tuhotoariki, but a part of Kawera was returned by Hawea to Tuhotoariki. Then he says, on the same page, that Papapohatu and Hinewhaki, two eel weirs on the Rotoroa, were given by Te Rangikamangungu to Hawea, and that Hawea went on on his own account and took possession of Kawera. Paora Kaiwhata says that the gift to Tuhotoariki was before the fight between Te Rangikaumangungu and his (Paora's) people. That assumes that Hawea had some right, independent altogether of his wounding, according to Paora. On page 541 he says" Tuhotoariki had the mana over this portion of which I have given the boundary. This was the land returned by Hawea to Tuhotoariki. After this Hawea was wounded." Then at page 563 he said "Maata Te Hei and Pakapaka did not participate in the gift; it was to Tuhotoariki alone." These quotations from Paora Kaiwhata's evidence prove, first, that Kawera was a separate block; and, secondly, that Tuhotoariki had the land given to him by Hawea, and occupied it.

Noa Huke is the next witness who speaks of Kawera. He says (vol. 19, p. 466):—"I know about the gift to Tuhotoariki" Further on he says that Hawea came to take possession of the land belonging to his people, Ngati Hineiao. He then gives an account of the attack on Tuhotoariki by Ngati Hawea, and Hawea's saying to Wha kato, "As you have ill-used your cousin, leave that place for him." And he goes on to say. "This was the gift of Kawera to Tuhotoariki." At page 580 he says, "The only right of Hawea to Kawera that I know of was his wounding." So Noa assumes that Hawea had a right to Kawera as well as to Otupaopao through his wounding, and, in relating the words of Hawea, he uses the same phrase as was used by our witnesses. On the same page he says, "Hawea lost his mana because he made a gift of the land to Tuhotoariki. . . . This gift to Tuhotoariki was not his only right to Kawera. He had a right from Tarsia and Te Honomokai, down to the time that Hawea made the gift. It was not because he married wires of Ngati Hineiao that Tuhotoariki lived at Kawera." However, that is of "tad moment. The point I am urging now is that Tuhotoariki's title was recognised to Kawera, and Kawera was recognised as a separate block. Hoana Pakapaka says (vol. 20, p.). "It is true that Hawea made a gift to Tuhotoariki. He gave Kawera toTuhotoariki. Tuhotoariki did not derive his right to Kawera from that gift. He had an ancestral right. Hawea got his right to Kawera by being wounded close to this block. He went to Kawera because he was a great chief. He got his right to Kawera from his wife Hinepato kariki." Thus according to Hoana, Hawea had a right to Kawera as a chief, because of his wounding, and because he had married Hinepatokariki, who was the niece of Te Rangikamangungu. I will refer to two other passages in Hoana's evidence, at p p 66 and 69, in which she recognises that Kawera is a separate block.

Of course Hoaua had no right there, if this part of the block had been given to Tuhotoariki, because she is not descended from that ancestor. At page 69 she admits that Kawera is a separate block. According to Hoana, instead of Otupaopao alone being returned by Te Moananui all the land was returned by him; but my point is that Kawera, as represented by us, is a separate block; and I began by saying that, excluding any gift by Te page 10 Moananui affecting this block, the Court is bound to find that Kawera went to Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka. It would have gone to Maata te Hei also had she been living with her brother, but she was living at Rushine. I say that the Court is bound to find that Tuhotoariki owned the land, and if Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka owned the land, it proves that Kawera was a separate mock, and the contention of the other side that this is one block falls to the ground. It does not matter whether Tuhotoariki got his right by gift from Hawea or not. It is sufficient that he had a right there. I propose to show before I finish the bearing of that on the adjoining block Pukehamoamoa. Hoana admits that she has no ancestral right to Kawera, and can only claim there by virtue of gift of Te Moananui. Then at page 69 she gives the boundaries of Kawera and admits that it was a separate block. The next witness I shall quote is Paramena Te Naonao. He says (Vol. 20, p. 79) "Hawea lived at Kawera on account of his wounding. He did not stay long there, but vent away on account of a quarrel between Whakato and Tuhotoariki. Hawea said to Whakato,' Leave that place of your younger relative to him.' Tuhotoariki's land was from Te Kohai, up Ohiwia to Kaweramoana and Kawerahiwi." Then there is further the evidence given in this Court by Anaru Te Wanikau. He too says that Tuhotoariki lived at Kawera." Now what is the value of this evidence? I submit that even suppose the Court were to accept the extraordinary suggestion of the other side that all our evidence is false, the Court would still have to find that Kawera was a separate block and belonged to Tuhotoariki and his sister Pakapaka, who lived with him. That is conclusive from their own evidence. The next point bearing on this is what happened in the adjoining block, Pukehamoamoa, and who were decided by the Court to own that block. I may say shortly that Pukehamoamoa was found to belong to Tuhotoariki. It is true the Court recognised that the title came from Te Uamairangi, but they found that the block belonged to Tuhotoariki and his sisters, Maata Te Hei and Pakapaka. That is the point I wish to make. We say that the evidence in this case shews that Maata Te Hei did not come on to this block. It is to be noticed that Pukehamoamoa adjoins only Kawera of the different subdivisions of the Omahu block, and I ask the Court to remember that the finding of the Court in Pukehamoamoa was upon the suggestion of the very people who are claiming this block, for they found in favour of RenataKawepo. The evidence of Renata in Pukehamoamoa is, I submit, very important. I refer particularly to his evidence in vol. 6, p. 31. "This land was mine before the transactions with Te Moananui and the fight with Te Hapuku. I got it through my ancestors. My ancestor who got the land was Tuterangi. He lived with Hawea's offspring, one of whose sons married one of the daughters of Tuterangi. Hawea gave this land. It belonged to Ngati Hineiao. It was the eels in the river that were given by Hawea."

This is very important, as it shows that Ngati Hawea had a title to Pukehamoamoa.

I ask the Court to notice that, according to him, Ngati Hawea had some interest in this adioining block. How then can it be said that Hawea's interest did not extend to Kawera? This evidence should be read along with the fact that Pukehamoamoa was given to the same people for whom we claim Kawera, with the exception of Maata Te Hei, who has not been proved to have occupied. The only difference is that the Court, instead of making Tuhotoariki the root of title, finds that the title was in his father, Te Uamairangi. But whether Tuhotoariki got his right from his wives or not is of no moment. We have Renata's sworn testimony that Hawea gave certain rights to his ancestors; and the inference clearly is that Hawea had some right to this block. Renata says (vol 6, p), "My ancestor who got the land was Tuterangi. He lived with Hawea."

That is the sworn testimony of Renata in another block. I ask the Court how are they to get out of this statement, assuming that the evidence given by the other side is correct, and I do not ask the Court to assume that that evidence is wrong or false. From the evidence I have quoted it has been, I submit, conclusively proved that Kawera is a separate block, that it belonged to Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka, and that only their descendants, and those who lived under them, ace entitled to it.

I now come to Matatanumia, and let us see if we can find what the evidence of the witnesses is as to that being a separate block. On this point there are seven witnesses, excluding those who were examined in this Court, who speak of Matatauumia, and who moat of them say that it belonged to Mahuika, and that only Mahuika's descendants can claim there. The witnesses on our side are Raniera Te Ahiko, and Mrs Donnelly. The witnesses on the other side who prove our case are Raniera Te Waha, Hoana Pakapaka, Noa Huke, and Paramena Te Naouao. If I can show that Matatanumia is a separate blook, the Court will be bound to say that only Mahuika's descendants are entitled to that piece of land. Raniera Te Waha says (vol. 18, p. 329), "My hapu is Ngatti Potauanoa.

page 11

I know the land before the Court. I claim a portion. I can trace from Taraia I to Potauanoa and down to myself." Raniera claims only a portion, and he claims from Mahuika. Hoana Pakapaka says (vol. 20, p. 40), "Matatanumia, Ohiti, and Torohanga are all under one ancestral right Ohiti was the pa of these three places. Taraia II. was their ancestor, and the the right descended to his son Mahuika. Taunoko belonged to the last-named as well." I submit that is conclusive. Here is Hoana saying that, so far as Matatanumia is concerned, it belonged to Mahuika, and only his descendants had a right there. On page 43 Hoana gives the boundary of Mahuika's portion, and this boundary agrees with that of Matatanumia in our statement of claim. She goes on to say, "The portion on the Matatanumia aide of the boundary belonged to Mahuika." On page 63 she says, "Ohiti and Waitio belong to Mahuika alone; he was a son of Taraia. They all did not have a right to Ohiti, i.e., Hinehore, and Hikateko had none Their mana On their land ceased at Ohiwia," At page 69 she says the same thing; "The chief of Ngaitaraia, Hoeroa, who is dead, was the principal chief on Mahuika's portion. Renata got the mana and ownership from Hoeroa. The boundary of that portion begins at Te Rereomahu, Te Arawhata a Tikumu, Tuna a Tamateanui, thence up a ridge to Kaingahapuku, thence to Upokopaoa Orangimatakaha, Tokanui, Uretungoungou, thence to Te Anao Kahupaetai on Waitio (Renata's wire fence begins here), down Waitio to Te Umuwhakauta at its mouth, thence to Ngapukea Hineiringa, thence to Omahu lake, thence to Taunoko, then closing at Te Rereomahu. On Ohiti side of this boundary was Mahuika's land." At page 73 she has altered her tune on reexamination, and says that Matatanumia belonged to Te Honomokai as well as Mahuika. My point is this, suppose Hoana's evidence stood alone, it proves that Matatanumia is a separate block, and that only Mahuika's descendants are entitled to it We will next take Paramena Te Naonao, another of their witnesses. He says (Vol. 20, p. 93), "If Hoana said Matatanumia, Ohiti, and Torohanga are one she is correct. If she said Mahuika was the only child of Taria wno occupied Ohiti and Waitio she was right. She made a mistake in saying that outside, eastward of Tunaa Tamatea to Upokopaoa belonged to Hineotus, Hineteao, and Honomokai, and I corrected it. Their rights are on the other side of the Ohiwia stream, where their pas and houses are. I mean the Kawera side. Noa was right in saying that Mahuika was the only son of Taraia who had a right to Matatanumia." Paramena's evidence amounts to this, that eastward of Ohiwia Mahuika had no interest. I will now refer to the evidence of Noa Huke. The Court will remember that in my crossexamination he said that he made no claim whatever to the east of the Ohiwia stream. He abandoned all claim to Otupaopao and Oingo. He said that he claimed only Matatanumia as a descendant of Mahuika; and how could he do otherwise? When he sent in an application for Matatanumia, he gave the eastern boundary as the Ohiwia stream. That agrees entirely with the evidence that he gave in this Court. He confines his claim te Matatanumia alone. On re-examination he said that the old Ohiwia stream ran to Paherumanihi. Mr Fraser tried to bring out that that was the Ohiwia he referred to when giving his boundary, but the result was a perfect collapse of that theory.

Noa knew where the new month was and the old mouth, and yet when he sends in his application he begins his boundary at the new mouth. I asked Roka Huke about this and she says that canoes could go up the new Ohiwia in her time. This shews clearly where the main stream ran. Noa said plainly, on my cross-examination, that he claimed nothing on the east of Ohiwia, and on re-examination it was made perfectly clear that he referred to the present Ohiwia. I am not asking that Noa should be bound by his application alone, but surely he must be bound by his oath. I will also show what he swore in the previous Court. He said there (vol. 19 fol. 460) "I know Matatanumia, a portion of this block. I can give its boundaries. Beginning at Ngapuke it goes to Kirikiri a Te Poroa, Onoke, then to the Queen's road at Tunao Tamatea (an eel weir on Ohiwa); then it turns and goes towards Runanga to Upokopaoa, Orangimatakaha, Orakaikohuru, Te Marangai a Tahito, Te Maire No. 1; thence to Te Awa a Pakuri, Ngatanui, Te Pou a Hinekatorangi, to Waitio, where it joins the Ngaruroro, down Ngaruroro to Ngapuke. The post of Hinokatorangi was called after an elder sister of mine, and was erected by Tauranga. I claim Matatanumia through Auihi, Taneuma, and Rahuauui. The balance of the block I claim through Tuterangi." I ask the Court to notice that Noa claims through Auihi, who was a descendant of Mahuika. At page 486 Noa says,"I will now trace through Mahuika, the son of Taraia, borne at Oreore, and who lived principally at Matatanumia. In his time Auihi his grandson lived there. Mahuika alone owned Matatanumia." At page 567 he says, "Ngapuke is a small hill. It was mine. I have rights to it through seven ancestors. The principal one is Mahuika, from whom page 12 I claim under three rights." I have now cited the evidence of Raniera Te Waha, who was not on our side and of Hoana, Noa, and Paramena, who are all against us. Another Ngaiteupokoiri witness, Paora Kaiwhata, says (Vol. 19, p. 455) that Ohiwia was a boundary, but he does not give details about Matatanumia. Then I take Raniera Te Ahiko, one of our witnesses. At page 198 of Vol. 19 he gives the boundaries of Matatanumia, and gives the names of a great many eel weirs in that block, and of the persons to whom they belonged. On Page 209, speaking of the children ox Taraia II., he says "Mahuika was the next child, Tiwhakairo, Ohiti, Waitio, Ohaoko Tahunui were his lands." At page 212 he says, "I know the part between Matatanumia and Waitio. On one side is Runanga, and on the other a lake, but Ngaruroro is there now. That part belonged to Auihi and Pukeake his brother, and so did the eel weirs there. I mentioned an eel weir there in connection with Tauranga yesterday. I mean that it belonged to him. Ngatanui was a lagoon there with an eel weir in it. It belongs to Tauranga's descendants Noa and Wi Wheko." At page 226 he agrees with Noa in confining Matatanumia to Mahuika'a descendants. He says "Potauanoa had two children, Auihi and Pukeake. They ere the only ones who have a right to this block of the children of Potauanoa." The Court will see that Mrs Donnelly gives similar evidence. I will give the references without reading the extracts (vol. 19, pp. 290, 291, 382, 383).

I again submit that if the Court had to take the evidence of the other side's witnesses alone that it would be bound to come to the conclusion that Matatanumia is a separate block and belonged to the descendants of Mahulka named by Raniera and Noa, viz., Pukeake and Auihi, and again I ask the Court to remember that in the face of all these allegations of gifts and everything else, Noa said that he claimed nothing to the east of Ohiwia, and confined hiself to the new Ohiwia, not the old. That is all the evidence that I shall refer to affecting Matatanumia.

The next question I shall deal with is this: Did Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea have a title to the remaining part of the block, that is, Ooingo and Otupaopao? As to that there is, I submit again, evidence, not of our witnesses alone, but of witnesses on the other side. Taking the witnesses of the other side, there is conclusive evidence that Te Rangikamangungu and Hawes had a right to the remaining part of the block, and that their title has not been disputed, unless the statement made by the other side of the gift at Mamawatu is to be considered. Of the Ngaiteupokoirl witnesses who speak of this, three of them, and they are practically the only old men on that side, admit the title of Te Rangikamaogun? u and Hawea. They are Noa Huke. Paora Kaiwhata, and Paramena. Who are the other witnesses they have called? I submit the only other witness is Hoana, and the Court must have seen from the nature of her evidence in this ease that she could not give much information. Again I say that if the Court takes these three witnesses alone, and excludes all the other testimony, they would be bound to come to the conclusion that Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea bad rights to this land.

As to how Te Rangikamangungu got his right to this land there is a difference of opinion, or rather a differernce of tradition, for it cannot be called opinion or testimony. The question is whether, as Raniera Te Ahiko says, Te Rangikamangungu was invited to this land, or whether he went on to the land because he was related to the people living there, being able to trace his descent from Te Huhuti, or whether he went there because he was a great chief and was invited to go on to the land in consequence of what is called Tuku's gift. I submit to this Court that it is perfectly immaterial how Te Rangikamangungu got on to this land. That he was there before the beginning of this century Is undoubted. That he lived on the land, that his relatives were killed on it, that Ngaiteupokoiri never held possession of the land, but, when they came on to it, were defeated and driven off and forced to take refuge in Patea, has been conclusively proved. The Court therefore has to start with this; they find Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea in possession of the rem ining part of this land, at the end of the last, or the beginning of this century. This is on the evidence of Paora Kaiwhata, Noa Huke, and Paramena. There was no necessity for Ngaiteupokoiri to set up Te Moananui's gift if Hawea and Te Raugikamangungu had not been in possession of the land. I will now ask the Court to refer to the evidence on this point, and here again I shall be content to rest my case on the evidence of the other side alone. The Court may wipe out all the other evidence, excepting only as to the alleged gift. As to Te Rangikamangungu, Noa says (vol. 19, p. 462), "The whole of this block, from Te Whanga to Puketitiri and Titiokura at Mohaka was affected. That land was given to Te Rangikamangungu and Tutura; they went and put up rahuis all over it. At Puketiuri, Piko, a man, was the rahui. At Oingo (Hauhan) was Kauhourangi, another man the whole of this land was thus made ascred, even the eel weirs." At page 493 he says, "Hawes had a right to the land page 13 at that time. I mean to Otupaopao, Omahu, Ohiwia, and Oingo. Ho acquired his right by gift from Rangikamangungu and Tutura, having married the daughter of the latter, Hinepatokariki." Noa's evidence clearly shows that Te Rangikamangungu had the land, and that Hawea also had an interest in it, which was not through the shedding of his blood. At page 589 Noa says, "Tuku's gift did not affect my land, as it did not include any portion of it. The gift was from Te Whanga to Tangoio and Puketitiri and Kaweka. This block was included. Tuterangl's portion was not included." On the same page he says, "Ngati Hinepare had a fight with Rangikamangungu, and took this land, as Paora said in the Pirau case. Ngati Hinepare had killed Te Kauhourangi at Taumatamauku." On page 580 he says "Rangikamangungu's mana did not cease over this block when Ngati Hinepare took it, as Paora has already said "In vol. 20, p. 13, Noa says "Raugikemangungu, Hawea, and Tutura I heard had mana over this block at one time, a long time before the wounding of Hawea" According to Noa, then, if Rangikamangungu and Hawea had mana over this block a long time before the wounding of Hawea, they must have had a title to it long before the beginning of this century. At page 18 of the same volume, in speaking of the Paratuna fight, Noa says, "Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu were trying to retake the land of Rangitaumaha at Paratuna. Otupaopao and Oingo were then in the possession of Ngati Hawea and Ngatikahungunu. It was in the time of Te Urukahika and Paora's father. Hauwaho was the man who was in possession. He was a descendant of Rangikamangungu." How is the Court to get over Noa's evidence? He first excludes himself from the block, and then he says that Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea had a title before the shedding of Hawea's blood, and that although Ngati Hinepare fought with them, they did not destroy their mana. He says, further, that at Paratuna Ngaiteupokoiri were attempting to obtain this land, but they suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the people is possession, and were driven off; and I will show later on that Rotoatara was in continuation of the same quarrel. I do not care whether Te Rangikamangnngu's right hinges on Tuku's gift or not. My point is this, that Te Rangikamangungu and Hawea are found in possession of this land. They put up rahuis all over it. Noa's evidence alone on this point is sufficient to win our case. Of course I am not bound to say that I will make my case from the evidence of the other side, and in hardly any other instance could a counsel make bis case from the evidence of the adversary: but this is a ea e so strong, ani my learned friend found it to strong thai fat says the Court was oppressed by the weight of our evidence, that I am enabled to say that I could take that course. At page 412 of vol. 19 Paora Kaiwhata gives an account of the evening of Tuku's death by Te Rangikamangangu, and says, "When Papoto was taken, the whole of this land now before the Court, and on to Tutaekuri, was taken by Te Rangikamangungu." Thus, according to Paora Kaiwhata, Te Rangikamangungu took tho land by conquest, and did not need to rely on Tuku's gift. He shows that Raugikamangungu was in possession by the strong hand, and when, later on, Ngaiteupokoiri attempted to take the land they were driven off by Te Rangikamangungu's descendants, and almost annuihilated. Paora says again (p. 425), "The cause of the fights between our people and those of Te Rangikamangungu was the gift of Tuku and that of Amohia. The result was that after much fighting, the mana was taken by my relations. The mana over this block, Te Whanga, Puketitiri, to Maungaharuru and Mohaks, is what I refer to." At page 551 he says, "Kauhourangi's kainga was at Oiogo. He was killed because he was living on the laud. He did not bewitch Koputauaki. I heard the last-named was bewitched by Hauwaho. Kauhourangi was living on the land given to Rangikamangungu, his brother-in-law. He was killed long before the Ana a Kaiatahu fight. When he was killed this land was under Rangikamangungu." How does my friend get over this evidence of his own witness? It is still further proof, if more were wanted, that Te Rangikamangungu was in possession of this land. We have had the evidence of Noa Huke and Paora Kaiwhata. I shall now quote the evidence of Paramena Te Naonao, another witness of theirs. He says (vol. 20, p. 96), "I point out Motukumara. Rangikamangungu and Tatars lived there through the gift of Tuku. They were defeated by Psora's people and then had no right there," (p. 99), "Rangikamangungu lost his right to to a part of this block, through being defeated by Psora's people. I heard Paora say that at two Courts." All this proves conclusively that Te Rangikamangungu lived on this block, and that he and his people defended it against Ngati Hinepare. Even if they were conquered by Ngati Hinepare on the other side of the Rotoroa stream, that did not affect this block, for Ngati Hinepare are not making any claim. The only claim of Ngati Hineuare is that put forward by Wiramins, and she claims only Kawera and part of Oingo. Then I submit the Court will look at the evidence of the other side. I apprehend the Court is not going to decide this case on the evidence of Broughton's witnesses alone, but, as I said before, even if it takes the evidence of hostile witnesses only, it is bound tto find in page 14 our favor. Mrs Donnelly's evidence on this point is to be found at pp. 263, 264, 205, 313,319, 321, 339, and 340, of vol. 19. She says that Te Rangikamangungu occupied this land after Tuku's death. She names the places at which he and bis people lived, and the eel weirs which they used; but it is not necessary for me to quote her evidence at length. Her evidence practically agrees on this point with that of Noa, Paora Kaiwhata, and Paramena. Te Teira gives evidence as to Te Rangikamangungu on pp. 37, 39, and 40 of vol. 19, and Te Meihana on pp. 97, 98, and 99 of the same volume, The evidence of these two beers out that of Mrs Donnelly.

The whole evidence is conclusive that Te Rangikamangungu was in possession—I do not care whether rightly or wrongfully—and he kept off all intruders. My friend has to admit that this land belonged to people who were not Ngaiteupokolri, and therefore sets up a claim by gift, Te Meihana says on pp. 159 and 161 that that the land did not belong solely to Tuku, but to Tutura and Te Rangikamangungu as well, and that the two latter bad an ancestral right to the block. Thus the Court will see that there are practically four sources of title that Te Rangamangungu had to the block; strong hand, ancestry, gift from Taku, and he had also a title from invitation. The evidence of Raniera Te Ahiki is most important, I submit, in this way; he is at the trouble of giving the names of the various places on the block where Te Rangakamangungu and Hawea's people lived. I submit that is surely conclusive evidence of possession. Whether the Court accepts his statement of how they got there or not, the foct remains that they were there. About that there can be no doubt. I will only give the references to some of the more important passages in Raniera's evidence on this point. The Court will and them at pp. 185, 187, 189,190,195, 197, 205, 206, 228, 250, and 251, of vol. 10. Eruini Te Whare, who was an independent witness and had no interest in the case, said (vol 19, p. 391) that the land went to Rangkamangungu, and that Rangikamangungu and Tutura derived this right from Tukuoterangi and Hikawera. Then Taihoa, who was Tareha'a sister, says (vol 19, p. 400), "I have heard of Tuku's gift to Rangikamangangu and others." These are all our witnesses that I rely upon to establish this point Wiramina, who was against us, at p. 294 of vol. 18, gave an account of Tuku's gift to Te Rangikamangungu. She says that the boundary of the land given was from Upokopaos, on the Runanga lake, to Te Totara on the Rotorus stream, and that Te Rangikamangungu thus became the owner of this land. She refers again to Tuku's gift at pp. 296 and 322. Hohaia Te Hoata says (vol. 18, p. 417), "On the part south of a line between Upokopoa and Totara I heard belonged to Rangikamangungu." Also important as bearing on this point is the evidence of Hoana Pakapaka (vol. 30, p. 64). She says, "I have no ancestral right to that land (from Ohiwia to Paherumanihi)."

I shall now proceed to show that this occupation, beginning with Te Raugikamangungu, continued down to the death of Te Moananui, and even down to the present time. I do not deny that other people have been in occuptation, but I submit that then comes in the English law which lays it down that if two people are in possession of a piece of land, each exercising rights of ownership over it, the land belongs to the person in whom the title in. That Is the English law, and, I submit, it is also the Maori custom. I will refer briefly to some passages in the evidence showing that Hawea and Te Rangikamangungu and their descendants had occupation of this land. I will again quote Noa Huke; and I need not repeat that on this point, as on the others with which 1 have dealt, the evidence given by witnesses on the other side is conclusive in our favor. Noa says (vol. 20, p. 1), "Tuturaoterangi gave Hawea some eel weirs and lands. Papapohatu, Aniwaniwa, and Hinewhaki were eel weirs. Tutura's right to those places and his power to give them away was through Tokopounamu, the brother of Numiaiterangi. Tukuoterangl gave Tokopounamu his right, and the former got his right from Hikawers, and he from Huhuti." This right of Hawea's, the Court will notice, was independent altogether of his wounding. The next day Noa says (p. 2), "I said yesterday that Hikawera had a right to this block. I say now that he had no mana on this land. Huhuti bad no mana on this block, as she went away to Rotoatara. Tutura had a right because he lived on the land. Tokopounamu lived on the land; but Huhuti, I say, went away." Again I say I do not care how Te Rangikamangungu got his right. There he was, and he exercised his right. On page 3 Noa lays. "I know about the boundaries of Tuterangi when I was living and working there at Omabu. My stepfather Paerikirikl told me those were Tuterangi's boundaries. They are not fixed boundaries; they have been done away with. I own on both sides of it. Hawea had left and gone away, and left the land to me alone. He gave it to me—to Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu I mean. Yes; Ngati Hawea gave the land to me. When my ancestress Raruraru married Te Kikiri, brother of Whakato, Paerikiriki was their child and I am his stepson. My father had died, and my mother married Paerikiriki, who brought me on to this land. Kikiri and Whakato of Ngati Hawea were the persons who gave us page 15 this land. I am speaking of Ngati Hinemanu when I speak of myself." On the same page he says, "Hawea got his right to this land from Huhuti, who was also the source of Te Moananui's right. In Hawea'a time, Huhuti's mana was brought on to this laud. He was set up as a chief by Ngati Kabungunu." Noa puts the title to the land in Hawea and in Tutura, who was Te Rangikamangungu's brother. Of course he contradicts himself in saying that Hawea go this right from Te Huhuti; us he had just said that Te Huhuti had no right. On page 4 Noa says, "The gift by Ngati Hawea was of Ohiwia to Ngaiteupokoiri whom Renata represented. The new right of Ngaiteupokoiri to Otupaopao was through Moananui's gift." Noa thus admits the title of Ngati Hawea to Otupaopao, but also to Ohiwla. There is a great mass of evidence showing the occupation of Hawea and Te Rangikamangungu and their descendants. The Court will pardon me if I do not read the whole of the extracts, but only refer shortly to them. Wirimina (Vol. 18, p. 325) says that Te Matenga, the father of Karauria, lived at Haubau on the Oingo lake, On p. 327 she says that Te Matenga also lived at Marumaru and Tawhitinui, and that Karauria lived at those places with him. At p. 328 she says that Te Rae Rae o Pahumata pa belonged to Hawea and hia son Wnakato. There is a difference of tradition as to who erected this pa. Some witnesses say that it was not built until after Hawea's time. It is immaterial, however, whether it was occupied by Hawea or not, as it is generally admitted that it was occupied by his son Whakato. Raniera Te Waha says (Vol. 18, p. 333), "Te Rao o Tahumata pa I know. It was Whakato's and Paka, paka's of Ngati Hawea." At p. 339 he says, "Omarupurua, a landing place for canoes, was owned by Hawea and Whakato. Ngati Hinemanu lived there with Te Kikiri II., son of Hawea." At page 400 he says that Te Hemo eelweir was owned by Te Kikiri, the son of Hawea. Hamana says (vol. 19, p. 6) that he used to go to Motukumara with Tareha, Te Matenga, One One, and others to catch eels. Te Teira gives evidence of occupation by the same people and their ancestors, at pages 39, 42, 43, 44, and 45. The evidence of Te Meihana as to occupation will be found at pages 98, 99, 137. 138, 139, 140, 141, 152, and 174. He names a number of settlements at which Hawea and his people lived, and the eelweirs at which they worked. He himself was living on the block with Te Moananui, Te Matonga, and others at the time of the introduction of Christianity. Raniera Te Ahlko names a great number of eelweirs all over the block, which belonged to Te Rangikamangungu and his people, and he also gives the kaingas at which these people lived (vol. 19, pp. 181 to 191). There is a passage in the evidence of Paora Kaiwhata which is important as showing where the Ngaiteupokoiri had their headquarters in the time of Te Rangikamangungu. He says (vol. 19, p. 535): "The descendants of Taraia II. were living at Ruahine, and did not take part in the fight against Rangikamangungu. They joined in the fight later on." He repeats this on page 536, where he says, "None of the descendants of Taraia II took part in the fight with Ngati Hinepare against Rangikamangungu for the land between Ohiwia and Tutaekuri."

An event which has an important bearing on the oocupation of this block was the attack on Motukumara by Ngatiporou. Te Teira's evidence as to this is en pp. 43 and 44. Te Meihana gives an account of the attack at pages 112 and 115, and and of an expedition to Waiapu, in which Te Hauwaho and Whakato defeated Ngaiporou, in revenge for Motukumara. The other evidence about this is that of Raniera Te Ahlko (p.p. 187 and 112); Airini (pp. 272 and 273); and Paora Kaiwhata (pp. 560 and 561). I have already referred to Paora Kaiwhata' s evidence as to the killing of Te Kauhourangi, the brother-in-law of Te Rangikikamangungu, at Oingo. He speaks of it at pp. 415, 416, and 551 of vol. 19. Paora also mentions the killing of Tahitowhenua, Te Rangikamangungu's nephew, on this block. (Vol. 19, folios 421 and 552). Raniera Te Ahlko also refers to this on p. 195.

The killing of these two people of Te Rangikamangungu on this block is, I submit, conclusive evidence that, at that time, the land was in the possession of Te Rangikamangungu. I do not think that I need refer to anything more on this point. According to Noa's evidence, he admits that he lived with Te Moananui and Tareha, and that both Te Moananui and Tareha went on to this block, and used it as if it were their property. The other side will not deny that, because they set up a gift by by Te Moananui.

Then I come to another point, which shows, I submit, conclusively, that this block belonged to Te Rangikamaugunga, that is, the decision of the Court in the Waipiropiro case. That that block is part of Otapeopao is admitted by the Ngaiteupokoiri witnesses. I refer to Noa Huke (vol. 20 p. 23); Hoana Pakapaka (vol. 20 p. 70); Paramens (vol. 20 p. 103, and the evidence of Roka Huke in this Court. These all say that Waipiropiro was part of Otupaopao. Now I submit that the fact that the Court gave that land to Tareha and Karauria as descendants of Te Rangikamangunga, is conclusive evidence of the title to this block. There was no objection by Ngaiteupokoiri to that land going through the Court, nor to Tareha and page 16 Karauria getting it. The explanation offered of that is that there was a boundary laid down between Renata and Karauria, and that Karauria was to take the land to the east of that boundary; but my learned friend in bis address yesterday said that Karauria was only to have the occupation of that land.

Mr Rees: I said as far as regards the upper portion.

Sir R. Stout: Why was there to be a difterence between the upper and lower parts? There is no evidence that there was to be any difference. If the fact is that Karauria got this special piece of land, why do Ngaiteupokoiri now set up a title to it? The fact that Waipiropiro was awarded by the Court to the deacendants of Te Rangikamangungu helps me in two ways first, as showing that Te Rangikamangungu's title was admitted, because Karauria and Tareha did not rely upon any other title; and, secondly, as shewing the absurdity of any claim being made under Te Moananui's gift My learned friend endeavored to make a point of the fact that there were only three people put into this block, and he asks why the large number of persons, for whom Mrs Donnelly is now claiming, were not put in. Is the Court to listen to such an argument as that? In the olden times it was the almost invariable rule for the chiefs only to be put in the title. I will give my learned friend an illustration. He says that Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu got into Heretaunga because that block took in some of'the Ngaiteapokoiri land. To begin with, they did not get in as Ngaiteupokoiri at all; they got in as Ngati Hinemanu. Secondly, and this is of great importance, only three people of Ngati Hinemana were mentioned in the Qourt as having any right to Heretaunga, viz.: Renata Kawepo, Noa Huke, and Hone Kaweka. What became of all Ngaiteupokoiri, the 72 people in their statement of claim, who did not get in? So, if my learned friend wishes to use this as an argument, he should remember that only three of Ngati Hinemanu were mentioned as being entitled to the Heretaunga block.

The fact that Waipiropiro is part of this block is utterly destructive of the gift. It is entirely irreconcilable with the alleged gift, which I shall show was never heard of until this case came before the Court.

I will now deal with the gift itself. In doing this, I submit to the Court this question, I am not aware that the Court has hitherto decided it. Can a gift since 1840, which is contested by the descendants of the man alleged to have made it, be admitted? I could understand the gift being admitted if Te Moananni had come into Court and said "I give this land to these people."

But I am not aware of any gift such as they attempt to set up here ever being sanctioned by the Court, especially when there has been what I will call duplicate possession. That would be creating a new precedent I submit that the remarks which my learned friend read from the judgment of the first Court, and with which he seemed to agree, as to the absolutely conclusive proof necessary to establish a gift, are undoubtedly correct. If I can show that the statements made in support of this gift are absolutely contradicted by the evidence given in the other cases, by the evidence of Renata Kawepo himself, then, I submit, the Court must not listen to this claim by gift. I shall first refer to the evidence of Psora Kaiwhata, and I submit to the Court with confidence that, if Paora's story is true, there was no gift that the Court can uphold. I shall quote Paora Kaiwhata rather fully on this point. He says (vol. 19, pp. 438 and 439), "Moananai was the first to speak. Re said that Ngaiteupokoiri should come back to their homes. He spoke in the presence of all assembled. He did what he had been directed to do—that Meats Te Hei should be given back to Tereahi, and she was sent back to Ngaitenpokoiri by him and the words of Te Apatu to Moananul. The invitation of Moananai was accepted by Ngaiteupokiori. Hie words were agreed to. Moananui, Te Hira, Hawaikirangi, and others agreed." On page 554 he says, "Te Moananui made a speesh inviting Ngaiteupokoiri to return. He told them to get up and leave Manawatu and come to Heretaunga." On page 255, "I knew that Otupaopao and Omahu were the places mentioned by Te Moananui when he brought back Ngaiteupokoiri. He mentioned them at Manawatu. I was about to mention these places just now, but was interrupted. He in fact only mentioned Heretaunga. If Otupaopao and Omaha were not named they were meant because the Ngaiteupokoiri returned to them."

I submit that it amounts to this—that Ngaiteupokoiri were merely invited to return to Heretaunga. This witness says that that they were asked to return to their homes. They had no homes on this block. I ask the Court to remember this, here was a tribe which had been scattered to the ends of the earth—their existence as a tribe at an end. What do they get by coming back to Heretaunga? They got land extending over a hundred miles in length. They were getting back an immense territory extending right from here to Patea, a much larger territory than Ngatikahungunu were possessed of. Why then should this small piece Otupaopao be mentioned? My friend gave three reasons, the main reason was that Otupaopao page 17 was the eastern boundary of the Ngaiteupokoiri lands. Why should only the one boundary be mentioned? Is it reasonable to suppose that that one place would be mentioned if they were to get back this vast extent of country?

I now come to Noa's account of it. He says (Vol. 19, page 475). "Moananui said on our arrival at Manawatu, that Ngaiteapokoiri were to return to Otupaopao. He said this in the presence of all the people." At page 6 of Vol. 20, he says, "The gift at Manawatu was an invitation rather than a gift." At page 12 Noa says, "Moananul did not mention the names of places when he gave the land to Renata." I submit that if the statement is true that Te Moananui gave an eel weir en this land to Renata, then the gift at Manawatu could not have been made. It is utterly irreconcilable with the gift. If the gift of the eel weir was made it shows that the land could not have been given up Ngaiteupokoiri. The next reference to Noa's evidence is on page 22. He says: "Moananui's gift was made at Manawatu. Ngaiteupokoiri returned to Heretaunga and on to Otupaopao. I was present I heard Moananui speak in the marae. Paora Kaiwhata was there. Moananui said, 'Come back to Heretaunga and Otupaopao.' I am sure he said Otupaopao. Let Paora's talk be with him. I'll stick to what I say. If Paora's statement is true N'Upokolri would have taken Otupaopao without a right" At page 482 of vol. 19 he says, "Only a portion of N'Upokoiri returned with Renata from Manawatu—about 50. People were not anxious to leave the place. The elders only returned. Those who remained behind continued these some time and then came on. It was after the Pakiaka fight that Renata went to fetch them. Their first return was long before Pakiaka. The second party came after that fight That was Moananui'a gift."

I will now refer to what Noa has said in other cases upon this point. In the Ngatarawa No. 1 case, vol. 11, p. 114, he said "I went with Moananui to Manawatu to exhume Te Wanikau's bones and bring them to Heretaunga. He asked Ngaiteupokoiri to return. Renata was then in this district preaching. He went afterwards to Manawatu. After we returned he went to visit his people. Did not hear that Moananui sent him to fetch the people back to Otupaopao." There the Court will see that Noa does not say that Te Moananui mentioned Otupaopao at all. He was supposed to be then recounting what took place at Manawatu. Then in this case (vol. 20, p. 25). he says that the people responded to Renata's invitation and not to Te Moananui's. That bears out what he had previously said, that it was an invitation rather than a gift.

I will next take Anaru Te Wanikau, who was examined in this Court. He says that the only land returned by Te Moananui was this piece Otupaopao, This is contradicted by Hoana, who says that all the land was returned, as far as Ruahine. In this Court Anaru gives this account of it: "Te Moananui said, Ngaiteupokoiri, return to Heretaunga, I will return to you your land Otapaopao." In the Mangaohane case (vol. 9, p. 256), he said "I remember Ngaiteupokoiri returning to Heretaunga, but I don't know what the year was. If you mean the second return I can tell you. Renata brought them back then." He also gaye evidence about the same thing in the Awarua case (vol. 11, p. 173). "After that Renata addressed the whole of the tribes to the effect that they should go to Heretaunga; i.e.; Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu." Tha account given by Hoana Pakapaka is different (vol. 20. p. 47). "After Te Moananui had addressed the assembly, he turned to Ngatiteupokoiri and Ngati Hiuemanu and said, 'Return to Heretaunga; you must cease living at other people's places; you must return to Otupaopao;" and on page 62 she says, "Noa was wrong in saying that Ruahine and Patea were not included in the return of the land made by Te Moananui. His statement that Kawera, Ohiwia, and Matatanumia were not in Moanauui's gift is wrong. All I know is that Moananui made a gift." Even taking the words which Hoana says were used by Te Moananui, there was no gift. According to her what he said was, "You must return to Otupaopao." He did not say, "I will give yon Otupaopao." I ask the Court to look at what Hoana said in the Ngaterawa case. Her evidence was this (vol. 11, p. 83): "I went to reside on the land after Renata returned from captivity. Pirimona and Wi Wheko were there with us. Renata brought us back on his return from Ngapuhi." And, in the same case, on page 90, she says:—

"Renata alone brought me back from Manawatu. I have heard of Te Moananui, but that was subsequent. I knew him. He was a chief among his tribe. He belonged to Ngatikahungnau. I saw him when he came to Manawatu to exhume the body of Te Wanikau. I did not come back at that time, but my old people did. I was a child at that time when Te Wanikau's remains were brought. There were only two who returned with the remains of Te Wanikau. Others came back some years afterwards.

"When Renata came to Manawatu he assembled us and told us that we were to return to Heretaunga, as he was now himself returned, and they should now cease living among strangers. He assembled both N'Hinemanu and Nupokoiri." And again, on page 93, she says:—" We would never have returned from Manawatu if we had not been page 18 brought back by Renata. We looked on that place as oar future home."

It appears from this evidence of Hoana's that she was only a child when Te Moananui spoke to Ngaiteupokoiri at Manawatu, and that was no doubt the reason she did relate Te Moaoanui's speech. In this case, however, although on her own statement she was only a child at the time, she professes to recount what Te Moananui said on that occasion. Her statement in the Ngatarawa case is very important, that she and the others would never have come back from Manawatu but for Renata's Invitation, and it is borne out by the remarks in the Pukehamoamoa judgment, where it was said that it was Renata who brought back the scattered remnants of Ngaiteupokoiri and reestablished them as a tribe. The next witness X shall refer to is Paramena Te Naonao, who says (vol. 20, p. 102) "When we got to Manawatu Moananui said 'Ngaiteupokoiri, you must return to your place at Otupaopao which is vacant.'" But, according to Paramena's own evidence, It was not their place, as they had no ancestral title to it (vol. 20, p. 99). I ask the Court to look at what he said in the Otamakapua case (vol. 20, p. 29). "Renata brought back Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu to Heretaunga."

I shall now quote the evidence given by Renata Kawepo himself in the Ngatarawa case, and surely his sworn teatimony must be taken. He says (vol. II. p. 102). "I brought back Ngati. Hinemanu as well as Ngaiteupokoiri. I brought back all Ngati Hinemanu to Te Awapuni. Moananui arid others had been before me, but had failed to bring the people back. Ngaiteupokoiri and Ngati Hinemanu did not come until I had defeated the land-sailing chiefs." He also says "I have heard Hoana's evidence; it is correct." The evidence of Raniera Te Waha (Vol. 18, p. 336) is that only Hoani Te Koari and Ngati Hineiao, Te Moananui's own people, were invited to Otupaopao. He says that the people came back to Heretaunga in consequence of Renata's invitation, and not in consequence of Te Moananui's. He says nothing at all about a gift to Ngaiteupokoiri. Raniera Te Ahiko also relates what was said at Manawatu (vol. 19, p. 200). Monnanui invited Ngaiteupokoiri to return, but they did not respond, as Hapuku did not agree with Moananui, Hoani Te Koari was the only man who replied. He said: 'If I come back, would you give me my home, Otupaopao?' Moaaanui said: 'Come back, an d I will return it.' Hoani was a descendant of Hineotua. The invitation was not accepted and acted on."

Auaru Te Wanikau, in this Court, admitted that Hoani Te Hoari did speak. That bears out Raniera's evidence, and that, I submit, the Court will accept. The people who speak of the gift are Paora Kalwhata, Noa Huke, Hoana Pakapaka, Paramena Te Naonao, Ihaia Te Ngira, Anaru Te Wanikau, Roka Huke, Raniera Te Waha, and Raniera Te Ahiko. I submit that Paora's evidence amounts to nothing. Noa says that Otupaopao was mentioned; but it is significant that he does not claim there; and he also says that it was more an invitation than a gift. It is strange that Roka was not called in the previous Court; that la a matter which is always open to comment on a second trial. Anaru also gave evidence in this case; but when giving evidence about the same matter in a former ease he does not say anything about these words being used. Again, he is interested in the case, and although his evidence was available at the last hearing, he was not called. Hoana is a person directly interested, and she contradicts the other witness, Noa, as to what was included in the gift. Hoana admits that she has no ancestral right to Otupaopao. If she had no right how could the land be "returned" to her, or how could she benefit by the removal of the tapu as set up on the rehearing? Paramena says that Otupaopao was mentioned by Te Moananui. Ihaia Te Nglra says that it was mentioned by Hoani Te Koari; but his evidence, I submit, is of no value. Renata asserted positively on oath in other cases that it was he who brought the people back, and there is not a word of Te Moananui's gift. Further than that, Renata says that Tareha gave him the Ngatarawa block.

I want to say one or two words about the utter improbability of the gift My learned friend set up the theory that it was a removal of tapu. If it had been a removal of tapu, to whom would the land have gone? To the person who owned it, and that, I submit was Te Rangikamengungu. It was a very peculiar tapu when people have occupied the land all along. If it had been a removal of tapu, It would simply have taken away Hawea's right?, and left the land to Te Rangikamangungu. Again, how could Te Moananui give the land without the consent of Tareha? I submit that the fact that after the alleged gift, Te Moananui gave an eel weir to Renata's son is conclusive evidence that this gift is mythical. Further, in reference to this, what was the land affected? Is the Court to say that Otupaopao only was given? Hoana does not say so. Noa says sO, but he does not claim it, because he says it was more an invitation than a gift. Sow, Hoana, when she was pressed, says that Te Moananui was simply a guardian of the land, and it was not a gift of laud at all. The Court will recollect that they were forced to say that Hoana was page 19 fencing with this question. It was simply a guardianship as far as she knew, and there was no gift at all. Can the Court, on such evidence as this, assert that there was a gift, when the person said to have made the gift remained in possession of the land? There could have been no snob Rift. The gift was set up for the first time in this c[unclear: au]o it bad never been heard of before. It had not been referred to in any other block, and, if Hoana's evidence is true, that this gift was not confined to Otupaopao alone, then we should have heard of it in other blocks which have passed the Court, but it was never mentioned before, and why? Because it was never made.

My learned friend has used harsh terms in characterising the evidence given by tor witnesses, but I submit it has not been proved false at all. According to his opening he was going to show that Mrs Donnelly had been tampering with the witnesses, but how was that charge supported? Hamana, who was to have proved it, says that Mrs Donnelly did not ask him to suppress anything. Ibaia Te Nglra says the same. In connection with these meetings which were held before the case opened, I would ask the Court to look at this that if these parties had known of Te Moananui's gift, would they not have discussed it? The evidence is that these meetings were held to prepare their evidence, to "whakarite" it, and it was a proper thing to do, just the same as an European would bring his witnesses to his lawyer to find out what they had to say. Surely Maoris have the same right. I undertake to say that every witness on the other aide was seen by Broughton, aud talked over their evidence with him, before coming into Court, and I do not say that there is anything wrong in that. But the important point is this: Is it not a most remarkable fact that two meetings were held to discuss the evidence, and at neither of them was there any mention of such a thing as Te Moananui's gift? They were not aware of any gift by Te Moananui affecting Otupaopao. I do not say whether Otupaopao was mentioned at Manawatu or net. I say that they knew nothing of a gift to Ngaiteupokoiri, and therefore did not discuss it, I ask the Court if such a thing could possibly have happened, if these people had been conscious of Te Moananui's gift, that they would not have discussed it,.and considered how, to use Hamana's words, to overthrow it? The only thing discussed was the gift of an eelweir to Renata. The fact of that gift is conclusive proof that there was no gift by Te Moananui to Ngaiteupokoiri at all, Acoording to Anaru, even if there had been such a gift, it could only have affected this small piece Otupaopao; it does not touch the rest of the block. Otupaopao, therefore, is a separate block, and is distinct from the other three blocks, Kawera, Matetanumia, and Oiago. I ask the Court, is there any probability that such a gift was made? I can understand a landless people having land given to them to live on; but Ngaiteupokoiri were net a landless people. On the contrary, they were the owners of an immense territory, extending over a hundred miles in length, and yet the Court is asked to believe that this small piece Otupaopao-was given to them as an inducement to return. My second point is that if the gift ever had been made by Te Moananul it was not accepted. The evidence on this point is conclusive. Ngaiteupokoiri did not accept the invitation of Te Moauanul; they only returned to Heretaunga when they were brought back by Renata. My third point is that Te Moananui and Tareha exercised rights of ownership on this land after the return of Ngiteupokoiri; therefore the gift was not complete. I further submit that Tareha had an interest in this block, as a descendant of Te Rangikameugaugu, and there is no proof that he ever surrendered his title. Therefore Te Moauanul had no power to give away land that did net belong to himself alone. As bearing on that point I refer the Court to the decision in the Porangahau case, as to the powers of a chief in dealing with land. The Judges there say, "The claim from mana alone is one that cannot be recognised, as it conferred no proprietory rights according to Maori custom, it beng a recognised fact that the chief ofa tribe had no absolute right over the territory of the various hapus to whom it belonged, nor could he dispose of any and but his own." Te Moananui no doubt had a title, but Tareha had a title also, and Te Moananui had no power, therefore, to give the land without Tareha's consent. I submit that, from all pouts of view, this gift cannot be upheld.

I wish to refer now to the occupation of Ngaiteupokoiri when they came back, and on this point I submit that the evidence of the European witnesses ought not to be overlooked I do not wish to east any slur on the Maori evidence. The evidence of Maoris is very much the same as that of other people, although perhaps they have not quite the same notion of [unclear: thsanctity] of an oath. But the Court, in dealing with their evidence, will remember that most of them are interested 1 the result of the suit. Paora Kaiwhea has probably no interest in the set, although my friend appears vary unxious to secure two hundred acres for him. Most of the others are interested I submit then that the Court most 00k at the evidence which has been given in other cases, at Renat's [unclear: condencen] Pukehamoaraoa and Ngatarawa; at Hoaua's page 20 evidence in Ngatarawa; and at the evidence of the Europeans. I take first the evidence of Mr Locke (Vol. 19, p. 180), His evidence, I submit, shews that Taraia II's. [unclear: deeeendants] had no right to Otupaopao. It shews also that Renata treated Pwhakairo as his headquarters, down to the Omarunui fight; and that it was only by degrees that Ngaiteupokoiri settled at Omaha. When he knew the place first there were very few houses there. Mr Locka had conversations with Renata about the land, and he never heard of Te Moananui's gift. According to what Renata told him, the boundary of Ngalteupokoiri was the Waitio. Then I ask the Court to look at the evidence of Archdeacon Williams. My friend has not treated the evidence of that witness as being liable to comment. Mr Williams had never heard of Te Moananui's gift, and I ask if one in hit position, who has been looked on by the Maoris at their spiritual-adviser since 1853, would not have been told of such an important event as To Mosnanul's gift, if such a gift had ever been made? I ask the Court to look also at the evidence of Mr Ormond and the other Europeans. Mr Heslop gives important evidence as to Karaupia's dealings with the cattle running on this block, and his evidence is conclusive that there was no large settlement at Omahu in 1860.

A point for the consideration of the Court it this. The One man, besides Te Moauanui, who spoke at the meeting at Manawatu was Hoani Te Koari, and he was not a chief. [unclear: That] never came on to this block at all. When he returned to Heretaunga he went to live at Awatoto, and then at paepaetahi, where he died.

The Court will see on reference to the blue books which have been put in, that the blocks claimed by Ngaiteupokoiri were between Okawa and Ngaruroro, and no doubt they were entitled to those lands, but that does not include this block. As the Ngaruroro river ran, when that claim was made, this block did not He between it and Okawa.

I submit to the Court that, on the whole, there has never been a stronger case put before the Court than our case for this block. Of course we admit that in [unclear: Matatsumia] some of the other side have rights; but I think it it right, as my friend says, that they should be required to prove occupation. A great many persons in the Ngaiteupokoiri list have no occupation at all. At the previous hearing the Court seems to have adopted the some what unusual course of admitting persons about whose occupation there was a doubt, leaving their interests to be dealt with on subdivision. As to Kawera, Atareta, and Harata's children would have an interest there if it had been proved that Maata Te Hei lived there.

I submit to the Court that as far as Oingo and Otupaopao are concerned, Ngaiteupokoiri have no title. In Matataiuimia certain of the Ngalteupokolri have a title. In Kawera the descendants of Tuhotoariki and Pakapaka have a right. The Court has to consider if there is evidence that Maata Te Hei was at Kawera. If the was then her descendants are entitled. They were admitted in the Pakehamoamoa block, which was decided to belong to Tuhotoariki and his sisters, Maata Te Hei and Pakapaka.

I do not think I have anything further to say, as the weight of evidence is so entirely on our side.

I will submit that when the question of subdivision arises, as we have interests in Matatanumia and Kawera, the three blocks should be kept distinct. On the subdivision we do not wish to get Broughton's house. It it, I consider, the duty of a counsel to moderate his clients, and I have tried to do this, but in making a subdivision it It advisable that the Court should so separate the parties as to avoid any chance of friction.

The suggestion that nay friend made as to the division of the block was simply—I do not like to use a hard word, but it was very peculiar. It is perfectly plain that the most important people of Ngaiteupokoiri are with us. There are no people of mark on the other side except Atareta and Harata's children. As to Wi Wheko I can prove that he had no residence or occupation here at all, and he got into the Patea blocks on the finding that he and his people were permanent residents at Patea. But this question of occupation the Court will have to deal with afterwards.

My friend has been exceedingly unfortunate in making comments on Mrs Donnelly's evidence. The correctness of her evidence can be proved from the witnesses on the other side. The evidence of the other side it conclusive against themselves as to who is entitled to Kawera, Matatanumia, and Oingo, and I will go this length and say, that leaving out this question of Te Mcananui's gift, we are entitled to succeed in this case on the evidence of the other eide.

I have not specially referred to Wiramine's ease, but if the Court comes to the conclusion that there was occupation by Te Rangtkamangungu, Hawee, and Tuhotoariki that disposes of Wiramina's claim, and therefore, when I was citing the proofs of the occupation of Te Rangikamangungu, Hawea, and Tuhotoariki, I was really attacking her case as much as that of Ngaiteupokoiri Of course the Court, in order to give Wiramina's people an interest in the land, will have to negative the evidence of our occupa- page 21 tion.

As to Paora Kaiwhata's claim to this piece adjoining the boundary of Pirau, which he claima as part of that block, I submit that the judgment in Pirau operates as an estoppel on him. It would mean endless confusion if this Court were to say that the judgment in Pirau was wrong, and I submit that this Court has no power to do that, and therefore I submit that Paora Kaiwhata is entitled to no land at all in this block.

I am sorry that I have taken up the time of the Court at such length, but the case is a very important one, and the very bitter feeling that has existed between the parties, and which led to the death of Turanga, demands that it should be dealt with carefully.