The Land Court In Matakaoa

Land was kept from sale by placing it under the care of Hamiona (Puha?, a respected Matakaoa kaumaatua) who was appointed a kaitiaki (trustee) under the 1875 proclamation (Te Hati Houkamau, Ahomatariki Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:264). Another strategy employed to stop land sales was to disrupt the survey. Women were first sent to stop the survey to signify peaceful resistance to the sale, as in the Omaika and Pukerangiora blocks[32] . ‘Owners’ were invited to discuss their grievances and settle their disputes before Native Committees, but when this failed to halt the survey, men were sent to fight if necessary for their rights to the land[33] . These disputes were often carried unresolved into the Land Court.

In this Court session detailed accounts of conducting survey parties around the boundaries were given, rather than a recital of boundaries, to [p138] demonstrate a right to the land. For the first time people identified as ‘pu korero’ - Himiona Turi, Kireona, Wi Tamatama - who possessed the knowledge of the history of the land, appeared in the Land Court as witnesses. In the Ahirau investigation the same ‘pu korero’ gave evidence for both parties (Waiapu M.B. 10). They were the advisors of the tribe - ‘they pointed out the boundaries of the part given and returned’ (Rihipeti Tawhena, Ahirau Block, ibid:160). The surveys were however, often conducted by the Chiefs: ‘I pointed out the boundaries at the survey in 1880. I remember when the survey was made. Te Rei conducted it’ (Himiona Turi, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:176). There is some evidence to suggest that tribal history was imparted on request before the Land Court came to the Waiapu district: ‘I remember when the Court first came here the old men had begun to recount the history of the land before then’ (Pita Rooki, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:165). When this knowledge contradicted the boundaries set down in the survey map on which the Land Court fixed the title of ownership, ‘owners’ of both adjoining land and the block under investigation, objected. In the Ahirau case, which was retained by Maori owners after the title investigation, a gift of land which had been recently returned by one group was included in the survey, and it was contended that:

Interestingly the Judges also used the ‘pu korero’ to confirm whakapapa in Court (Puketauhinu succession Waiapu M.B. 10:269). Following the survey the land was taken before the Court so that the ownership could be fixed and the sale completed.

The evidence given by claimants concerning occupation suggests that there were links between the Matakaoa and Waiapu districts: ‘They are in the habit of going backwards and forwards between Waiapu and there [Te Araroa]’ [p139](Neho Kopuka, Tututohora, Waiapu M.B. 11:359). Other claimants also suggest that residence patterns were flexible:

When it is remembered that these accounts were given to show right to land both by authority over it, and occupation, it is difficult to assess the amount of movement over the landscape, but certainly it appears more flexible than the European concept of fixed residence. Given that Judge Mackay based his judgments on occupation and that several of the blocks investigated in this session were inland blocks, only seasonally occupied to utilise forest products, the disjunction between the concept of fixed and flexible occupation becomes vitally important. Judge Mackay certainly recognised the flexible nature of Maori residence patterns over several generations, but refused to allow it:

It is not clear however, whether he officially recognised the seasonal ebb and flow of residence. Claimants quickly adjusted cases to include evidence of occupation. In bush covered areas they gave details of collecting food from named trees, and named rat and bird-catching sites: ‘those are all the signs of occupation I know’ (Wi Ropata, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:93).

Judge Mackay appeared to give detailed judgments based principally on proof of recent occupation:

In contrast Judge Wilson’s judgments were based on ‘ringa kaha’ - the strong arm. For him the most important evidence demonstrated the ability to hold land:

There is some evidence to suggest that claimants shifted their cases to fit the Judges’ criteria but the changes are more readily seen during the next Court session.

The traditional histories given in this Court session are more detailed than those of 1875, but they are not the bulk of the evidence, which is restricted for the most part to events within the lifetime of the claimant. The traditional histories focus on gifts and conquests, and give the impression of an ever-changing or at least negotiable landscape of ‘ownership’ within ancestral boundaries. In the Aruhemokopuna judgment as:

the Judge drew a straight line through the block and awarded one side to the descendants of Huaanga and the other side to the descendants of Hinepare (ibid:232). When lists for this block were being prepared difficulties arose when people who were entitled to that part of the block not yet dealt with claimed to be included in the list (Hone Mokena ibid:233; Hori Mahua:302). Evidence given in Court clearly shows that boundaries were moved in traditional accounts to settle disputes (Paora Haenga, Waiapu M.B. 11:2), and that land was divided to settle disputes, even in the lifetime of the people in Court: ‘When Te Rei [Huna] and I got back he divided the hill - the south side to Kautaharua, and the north to [p141] Aowharua’ (Himiona Turi, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:171).

Claimants also referred to a continuous ebb and flow of people across the landscape:

This suggests that occupation and ‘ownership’ of land was a flexible on-going process. It also hints that the blocks surveyed and put through the Court were, because of their static quality, artificial constructs. The evidence on occupation however suggests that smaller groups, perhaps at the hapuu level, were closely associated, at least during the lifetime of the people in Court, with specific areas within ancestral lands. ‘I believe each hapuu received money on account of the several pieces owned respectively in the block’ (Maraea Kaku, Tututohora Block, Waiapu M.B 11:357). In the Ahirau case Himiona Turi states that ‘I have told you that it [the land] was not divided but I referred to parts only’ (Waiapu M.B 10:172). What appears to be emerging is a notion of ownership similar to Neho Kopuka’s statement concerning the sea - ‘shell-fish rocks were apportioned but there was no division of the fishing grounds (Tututohora Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:363). What I am suggesting is that land, like fishing grounds, was ‘owned’ or held in trust by large groups, which included several hapuu, and was not divided within the ancestral boundaries, while maara (cultivations) like mussel rocks, that is parts of the ancestral lands, were apportioned and closely associated with smaller groups (hapuu). [p142] The ‘ownership’ of these smaller areas was negotiable with other hapuu (cf. pages 50-51).

Government land purchase compounded the already complex situation where fluid and negotiative rights to land were being moulded to fit fixed notions of tenure, crystallised in perpetuity first by the survey and then by the award of title by the Land Court.

The traditional material in this session also hints at the existence of two types of mana - mana whenua (mana over land) and mana tangata (mana over people). I suggested (in Chapter 3) that during the 1860’s Land Wars, affiliations with the King Movement or the Government may have, in some instances, followed mana whenua and mana tangata lines. Traditions suggest that the person who received food from the land held the mana over that land (Ahomatariki Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:199). Claimants in the 1885-6 Court session certainly differentiate between mana tangata (mana over people) and mana whenua (mana over land):

Coincident with the escalation of local difficulties the Land Court became judicial in character. Solicitor Judges concerned with efficiency expected each witness to produce fresh evidence relevant to the claimant’s case, as in a Court of Law; in this way the Judge was expected to discern the ‘truth’ (cf. John White’s comment on page 25). There was more than one culture operating in the Land Court and for Maori people ‘truth’ was established by consensus of opinion. For this reason witnesses were required by local criteria to go over the same evidence to demonstrate that their [p143]evidence was in fact common knowledge - ‘The whole of Ngatiporou know of the history I have given’ (Wi Ropata, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:93). Faced with criticisms of the cost of protracted sittings both on the claimants and as barriers to European settlement, Judges saw these tactics as the very cause of the trouble (see page 133). Under the judicial process (legislation by the 1880 Native Land Court Act) charges could be laid against people judged to be deliberately wasting the Court’s time (see page 134) and summonses could be issued to ensure the Court attendance of claimants so that the investigation of their land could proceed even without their consent (see page 133). The role of the Land Court as mediator between the Maori and Pakeha cultural worlds, guiding the translation of land ownership from one culture to another, had become distorted and dictatorial (cf. 1875 Waiapu Court). In the Matakaoa district however, the ‘whenua tuturu’ remained outside the jurisdiction of the Land Court and the united reservation against sale or lease without tribal consent protected these lands from negotiation by Government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Matakaoa land investigated in this period was the land reserved from sale or lease by the 1875 Matakaoa Chiefs’ proclamation of ‘whenua tuturu’. Even today (1982), much of this land is retained by local people. Meetings to settle the take to be set up in Court had become less effective, and disputes were taken into the Court. For this reason the number of parties contesting ownership increased dramatically. In these sessions the evidence for each block often took more than four months to relate, even though the Court sat seven hours per day, six days a week, and filled some three-four, three hundred and fifty page minute books. In 1894 applications for land title investigations were recognised by Judge Gudgeon as proof of ownership. By 1908 several applications for the investigation of each block that was not yet investigated, had been lodged; these were submitted to Judge Sim, in the 1908 session, as proof of ownership (cf. Hohepa Karapaina, Waiapu M.B. 41:190).

At the commencement of each ‘new claim’ during this period, with so many applicants, claimants were required by the Judge to briefly declare their claim; and after ‘considerable discussion’ in which the people in the Court had an opportunity to set up claims or join parties, and parties with interests in common were encouraged to amalgamate their claims, the Judge decided the order in which the claims were to be heard. Proficient operators of Court procedure made a profession of conducting Land Court cases - in one instance Paratene Ngata of Waiapu appeared as a conductor in Thames in 1897 (Judge Mair, W. Diary, November 1897). Their payment was often an interest in the land under investigation. With the cases so hotly contested, judgments often took three-four days to prepare, and some hours to read aloud in Court (ibid 3rd-6th July 1888). After judgments were given, disputes over the allocation of the control of lists, the lists of owners, and the share allotment, commonly broke out in Court. In cases where [p145] objections could not be compromised, litigants had to give further evidence and the matter was decided by the Judge. The inability of local people to settle or compromise disputes outside the Court was probably not in their best interests, since it gave the Judge considerable power, not only over Court proceedings, but because land was at stake, also over the Matakaoa district.

In 1886 legislation was passed which restored the Crown’s pre-emptive right of purchase. Under this Act a system of Boards with Maori majorities was to be set up to administer the disposal of land (Sorrenson, K. 1965:44). For two years no land passed from Maori to European ownership. Reportedly because of the combined Maori and European protest (cf. Martin, R. 1965:46) - the Maori people because control of their remaining estates had gone to the Crown, and Europeans because land was no longer being made available for settlement - the 1886 Act was repealed. In 1888 the direct purchase of shares from individuals, which could be partitioned out by the Land Court from large estates, was resumed. The 1888 Act also empowered the Governor-in-Council, on the application of a majority of ‘Native’ owners, to remove any restriction against alienation on the title or Crown grant of any ‘Native’ land. In 1890, MacKay (the former Waiapu Land Court Judge) was instructed by the Native Minister, to compile the opinions of various authorities on Native tenure. In 1891 a Commission was established to [p146] inquire into Native Land Law. The Conmissioners - Rees, MacKay, and James Carroll (Timi Kara) - roundly condemned the legislation which had, since the establishment of the Land Court, promoted the direct purchase of land from individual owners. The ensuing legislation first sought to validate the titles to land awarded by the Land Court, and then purchased by Europeans (1892 Validation Court Act and 1893 Validation of Titles Act). In 1894 the Native Lands Administration Act made all ‘Native’ land awarded title by the Land Court automatically freehold and subject to tax when leased to Europeans (preamble 1909 Native Land Act; Native Meetings at Wellington 1896). All Maori land to which the title had been ascertained by the Court, was also liable for rates - the non-payment of which, with the consent of the Native Minister, could result in loss of land, either by sale or lease (ibid). The 1894 Native Lands Court Act extended the function of the Land Court to:

This legislation clearly shows that the Government was increasingly committed to alienating Maori land to Europeans and to the Crown.

At Waiapu people were becoming increasingly involved in pan-tribal movements, such as Kotahitanga, later known as the Maori Parliament, as their distrust and suspicion of Government policies affecting their land grew. In 1887 Mokena Kohere resigned from his seat on the Legislative Council, to which he had been appointed in 1872 (Kohere, R. 1949:40), and [p147] when a building was erected at Waiomatatini to be used specifically for the Land Court, he threatened to burn it down (ibid:38). The Waiapu people were also becoming involved in sheep-farming, grass-seed production, timber leases to Pakeha and Government, as well as growing vast quantities of maize, corn, wheat, and other crops. Unlike the 1850’s when these practices were under the control of individual Chiefs, operations at this time were controlled by ‘Native Committees’ made up of the leading members of hapuu (while the point I am trying to make is slightly overstated, I believe there was some shift in power). Co-operative stores, which generally held liquor licences, were dotted throughout the Matakaoa district - at Awanui (near Lottin Point), Mamaku (near the Matakaoa Block), Punaruku, Te Araroa, Horoera, Rangitukia, among other places. It was common practice for the eldest sons of the leading families of each hapuu to be involved in the running of these stores: Hone Mokena, Mokena Kohere’s son ran the store at Te Araroa; Paratene Ngata, the protegee of Ropata Wahawaha had stores at Awanui, Mamaku, and Rangitukia (Waiapu M.B. 40-43; Te Waka Maori). The fact that Chiefs’ sons were running these stores clearly suggests that where it was possible, Matakaoa people operated in keeping with traditional principles (cf. 1850 wheat growing, page 63).

In 1890 the Waiapu County Council was established from resident European settlers. Its first meeting was held at Port Awanui in the Resident Magistrate’s Courthouse. From that time all meetings were held at Tuparoa (Waiapu County Council Minute Book 1890-1902). Their records suggest that their greatest concern (and expenditure) was with roading. By 1891 they were trying to get a telephone line to connect Hicks Bay to the rest of The Coast (ibid:15), and writing to the Native Minister with a request for Judge Gudgeon’s Land Court to come to the district and stay there ‘until such times as arrears of work have been got through’ (ibid 22nd October 1891). [p148] They also discussed the possibility of the Government buying land at Hicks Bay (ibid:91), and some weeks later Colonel Porter negotiated with the Hicks Bay people for the site of a township there (Te Hatiwira Houkamau, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 42:183). The surveyor however, found that the land was too swampy, and the town was relocated at Te Araroa (ibid). The Government also negotiated to buy 2,000 acres there to set up a port, but because local opinion was divided over the sale, the £500 was refunded and negotiations ceased (ibid:185). In Matakaoa this was common practice, money on land put one party in debt socially to the other, but once the money had been returned the social balance between the two parties was restored, and the negotiation for the land ceased.

There were no Land Court sittings on the East Coast in the years immediately following the 1886 Native Lands Administration Act, which by restoring the Crown’s pre-emptive right of purchase effectively halted the transference of land from Maori to European. This also suggests that the Land Court was principally designed to make land available for purchase, since land could have been investigated on behalf of Maori owners without contravening the 1886 Act. At Matakaoa, people appeared to follow one of three options: There were advocates of the Land Court such as Paratene Ngata who encouraged people to put their land through the Court, by advancing Government money on it - when Paratene Ngata, as Captain Porter’s assistant, purchased a portion of Wharekahika for £50 from Manahi Parapara the money was taken to the Chiefs Te Irimana Houturangi and Hone Hautonga. ‘They were angry with me and said, “You have children why did you do this?” ’. Paratene became anxious about his money, so Te Irimana and Hone refunded it. ‘Paratene said there was no harm done as none of the money was expended and the whole amount refunded to him’ (Manahi Parapara, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 41:67). Their strategy may have been to ensure that the land was investigated before all the old people, who could act as mediators, died [p149] (cf. Mohi Turei 1874 Wharekahika Hui). Others, such as Te Irimana Houturangi, were adamant that they did not want the land investigated by the Court in their lifetime (Te Hati Houkamau, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 42:185), and settled disputes through ‘Native’ Committees. Still others, according to Te Harawira Huriwai during the investigation of the Horoera Block, such as Himiona Apanui, opposed these Committees (Waiapu M.B. 39:96).

Most of the blocks investigated by the 1894 Land Court had been surveyed in time for investigation by the 1885-6 Court session; when the Matakaoa district was in the grip of severe boundary disputes (see pages 123-125). Although meetings were held to appoint survey guides and arrange boundaries, surveyed boundaries tended to overlap adjoining land. Objections were made during the survey as soon as people realised what was going on, but the minute books are full of references which suggest that the inland boundaries agreed upon by the meetings were altered either by the guide:

The upshot was that unsettled boundary disputes were taken into the Land Court and investigations were protracted by becoming embroiled in survey disputes that could not be settled outside the Courtroom.

Meetings of hapuu were held to decide the take (ancestor see page 109) to set up before the Block Committee and the Land Court:

It was also decided at one of these meetings to fix the conquest of Uetaha and others as the ‘right “take” ’ since they were only conquering their own land: ‘Formerly the cases were set up under the “papatipu” right’ (Popata Pariohe, Tapatu Block, Waiapu M.B. 43:225). However it is difficult to assess how unanimous this decision was, that is whether it was made by both mana whenua (‘papatipu’) and mana tangata lines as those who refused to have their rights to land investigated may well have kept aloof from such meetings to express their disapproval (cf. page 75). Just as boundary disputes were taken unresolved into the Land Court, so too were the disputes over take.

This was also a period of revival and awareness of tradition. At pre-Court meetings the most eloquent of each hapuu spoke at length about their particular knowledge of the history of the land, to try to persuade the people of the merits of their take. However when one considers the divisions between hapuu over rights to land - ‘[only] when Tokata was investigated that any interference over these portions took place ... we have nothing to do with Manahi seeing his main idea is to shut others out’ (Keeti te Ahurangi, Wharekahika Block (of the Tokata boundary), Waiapu [p151] M.B. 40:60;77) - which destroyed the delicate balance built up over generations and the finality of the judgment made by the Land Court, it was probably also a period of great sorrow.

In 1888 the Land Court opened at Awanui for two days under the Resident Magistrate to hear and dispose of succession claims. One year later the Land Court re-opened at Waiomatatini for two months under Judge Scannell. No ‘new claims’ were investigated, although several subdivisions and allocations of shares of blocks heard by the 1885-6 Court session were completed. Judge Scannell and the Assessor interrupted the cross-examination of witnesses to ask points of clarification, however, they were very skilful in effecting compromise between opposing parties (Whakaangiangi Subdivision, Waiapu M.B. 13:161). Most of the land investigated by Judge Scannell was placed under restriction against alienation (cf. Judge Rogan in 1870 see page 85). In 1889 at the Waipiro Appellate Court Sir George Whitmore claimed that Judge Scannell’s restriction was injuring his lease-hold. The applicant’s lawyer also claimed that Judge Scannell omitted to follow the 1888 Amendment Act which allowed absolute restrictions placed over land provided the Land Court inquired into the sufficiency of land held by the owners. The application to lift Judge Scannell’s restriction was granted as Judges Barton and Von Sturmer decided the 1888 Act was unworkable:

The Matakaoa Blocks investigated in this session include Maraehara, Mautotara, Pakihikura, Tokata, Pariwhero, Papatarata, Taumata-o-Manu, and [p152] Hauturu (Waiapu M.B. 14-15; 24-25). In 1891 Judge Gudgeon opened a two year continuous session at Waiomatatini. During the 1860’s warfare Gudgeon, with his knowledge of the Maori language, was placed with a Native contingent on the West Coast, first under Colonel McDonnell, and then later under Colonel Whitmore (who later settled at Tuparoa). He accompanied Ropata Wahawaha and Porter in their pursuit of Te Kooti through the Urewera country (Gudgeon, T. 1887:353-5). At the end of the war he was appointed the Resident Magistrate at Waiapu (1879-80). In 1879 he blamed the crop failure on the ‘utter laziness’ of the people, but was aware, and recorded that the old Maori people attributed it to their readoption of Christianity (AJHR 1879 G-l:6). When the Native Minister, Bryce, ordered the arrest of Te Whiti and Tohu at Parihaka, Gudgeon was called to command his former Native contingent there. A Ngaati Porou contingent which included Henare Pereto, Waiheke Tureia, Manahi Parapara(?), who later became important in the Land Court, was also at Parihaka, but it is not clear whether this was the contingent commanded by Gudgeon.

At the commencement of this session the Judge promised applicants that he would adjourn the Court to other East Coast settlements as soon as the Court’s work at Waiomatatini was completed. Although only one Matakaoa block was investigated by this Court, residents of Matakaoa, or more correctly joint residents of Matakaoa and Waiapu (see discussion on movement page 181) shifted to the Waiapu to look after their interests in Waiapu land brought before the Court. In accordance with the Maori custom of hospitality the local people were obliged to find food for these visitors (cf. Kohere, R. 1951:48)[34] . The number of people at these Court sessions and the length of their stay stretched local resources to the limit, and during the sitting several applications were made to shift the Court because of food shortages. The attendance at these sessions is probably quite comparable to the month-long 1874 Hui at Wharekahika for which food was prepared for well over a year (see page 89).

This time the Court was held at Waiomatatini in the Government Courthouse (which Mokena Kohere had threatened to burn down) instead of the schoolhouse. In the 1885-6 Court session at Waiomatatini the children’s schooling was suspended for two years while the Court was conducted in the schoolhouse. The description of Te Araroa during the first Land Court there in 1894, suggests that schooling was disrupted even when the building was not directly involved (Booth, AJHR 1896 E-2:6). There is some evidence that children were taken to Block Committees to listen to the history of the land (Harawira Huriwai, Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:91) and it is probable they were taken to the Land Court for the same reason, although the school inspector suggests that the parents were so involved with the Land Court that their children’s education was neglected (Booth, AJHR 1896 E-2:6).

The Court opened proceedings by granting a survey, liens against the Aruhemokopuna Block which owners wished to retain. Paratene Ngata claimed the surveyor had agreed to survey the block for £7 and had received £3 so far, nevertheless the Judge awarded the surveyor costs in full of £52 (Waiapu M.B. 13:340). The Court arranged to hear succession claims on Saturdays and to spend the rest of the time investigating ‘new claims’.

Each ‘new claim’ commenced by claimants briefly outlining their right or take to the land. The claimant’s case was fixed as last, but the order in which the counter-claimants cases were heard was negotiable. The Judge arranged the order, and although the criteria used are not clear, it is probable that from his experience as the Resident Magistrate of Waiapu, he was aware of the rank and the links between some of the people in Court. On a marae the best speaker may either open proceedings or speak last to counter or sum up the points made by other speakers. In the Land Court the most advantageous position after that of the claimant, was at the end of the counter-claimants; at this stage in proceedings most of the [p154] evidence had been given and a case could be conducted to counteract that evidence. In most of the cases heard in the 1894 Court Manahi Parapara[35] was given this position.

By the time the Court shifted to Te Araroa in 1894 (after a six months adjournment), most of the cases involved six or seven claims, often each to separate portions of the surveyed block. Some of the claimants intimated that their land was in fact part of an adjoining block which had been mistakenly (others contended deliberately) included in the survey.

In every investigation conductors represented the interests of their clients. In the Mautotara investigation Mereana Waipauhu opened her own case but relied on a conductor to cross-examine the witnesses of opponents. Certain other women also set up claims to land but to my knowledge there is no instance of women conducting cross-examinations in Court. The role played by these women - at meetings to settle take (see page 149), negotiating with the Government over land purchases - ‘Ripeka [Pare mamaku] sold these two pieces to the Government’ (Popata Pariohe, Tututohara Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:364), conducting survey parties (Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B.10), and in Court - Keeti te Ahurangi set up claims to Tokata in 1894 and 1908; Mere Katene set up a claim to Ahirau in 1886; Mereana Waipauhu set up a claim to Mautotara in 1894; Mere Karaka appeared as the principal witness in Pohautea; Hana Te Rore requested the reduction of Court fees in Judge MacKay's 1885 Court and was a principal witness in Pakihikura[36] - is comparable to the role of male 'puukoorero' (see page 138). When their extensive knowledge of traditional history, whakapapa, and boundaries was not given personally, they were cited by male claimants as the authorities from whom the knowledge was derived:

These women were descended from some of the most aristocratic lines in Ngaati Porou and for this reason they held the mana to speak (cf. Apirana Mahuika's Thesis 1973).

The evidence during this Court session was primarily confined to events that happened in the lifetime of the claimants. Most of the blocks were unoccupied and inland, and rights of ownership were expressed through detailed accounts of timber leases to Europeans, and the conduct of surveys:

To further demonstrate occupation, claimants pointed out sites on the map in Court: 'on ridge of Oruataiaka was an "ara tawhito" [ancient path] it belonged to Mahakireonui' (Hori Akuhata, Taumata-o-Manu Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:361); listed who was buried on the land: 'Mahaki and Manu are buried here in the Pa. Tamahanga is buried here and Paheke a son of Taku are all
buried in Pa' (Rihipeti Parengatai, Taumata-o-Manu Block, ibid:368); admitted for the first time in Court, to being King Movement supporters during the 1865 confrontation: 'While I lived on this land totara trees were cut to make a whare for the King. Whare was called Maruangaanga: Te Hutana owned it' (Mereana Waipauhu, Mautotara Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:125).

The amount of traditional material given in Court as evidence, varied between claimants. For the first time traditional accounts include spiritual matters: 'Te Atuataheke is near a tapu [?] it is said that Kauwhakatuakina used to go there to his tuahu before war. Tuiti's atua was at Wahirere just outside the Block' (Manahi Parapara, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:292), and cannibalism, although the latter appeared to be [p155] given to undermine the claimant's case, as she was a descendant of the ancestor who ate birds, rats, and men. Tactically it was important to undermine the credibility of opponents in Court, especially in the 1894 Court session because judgments were so often based on the credibility of witnesses.

Written evidence was also cited intermittently and it appears that once evidence including whakapapa had been given in Court and not disproved or challenged, then the Court was bound to accept it (Tapatu Waiapu M.B. 44:163). This legal practice assumed that with sufficient inquiry a single version of the facts would emerge, a concept which may not be cross-culturally applicable.[37] When the Judge found the evidence 'contradictory and unsatisfactory to an extent that we have not experienced in any previous case here or elsewhere' (Maraehara judgment, Waiapu M.B. 15:104) he accepted former decisions by Block Committees (Maraehara judgment), letters by ‘Government side’ Chiefs: 'this letter is really a certificate in favour of that hapu' (Omaika judgment, Waiapu M.B. 25:273A:2), and early applications for the investigation of the land under investigation (Tokata Judgment, Waiapu M.B. 24:388) as the basis for his award of ownership.

When the conductors, who were often closely related to the people whom they represented, had completed their cross-examination of a witness, the witness's own conductor was allowed to re cross-examine. The Judge also cross-examined each witness and occasionally recalled them to give further evidence, however there is no indication that the Assessor did more than translate the judgments into Maori - they were read in Court in both English and Maori. Judgments in former Court sessions were often brief confirmations of decisions made at pre-Court meetings (Rogan's 1875 Court), or compromises between opposing claims (Wilson's 1886 Court); in only one instance was the evidence reviewed as ‘unusually conflicting and ...[p157] contradictory’ (Judge Wilson, Pohautea, Waiapu M.B. 11:9) and then only in a general way. In contrast Judge Gudgeon couched his detailed decisions, often spanning some ten-twelve pages,[38] in terms of:

As in 1886 when Judge Wilson was impelled to shift his Court as a 'malignant' fever was prevalent at Waiomatatini (Waiapu M.B. 11:232), a severe outbreak of influenza, which reached epidemic level at Te Araroa in 1895 (Booth, AJHR 1896 E-2:6), caused the Court's adjournment to Awanui. Clearly even where Land Court sessions were held near the land under investigation, the disruption to everyday life was substantial. Not only directly through disputes over surveyed boundaries, contested take in Court and during meetings both before and after the Court, but also indirectly in terms of getting people to shift near the Court so that they could attend protracted sessions, depleting food resources near the Court, taking time away from the cultivation of crops and sheep-farming, disrupting [p158] children's schooling and causing population decline - disease quickly reached epidemic level in the crowded conditions.

In September 1895 an 'unusually large number of the N'Porou' assembled in the Courthouse at Awanui (Waiapu M.B. 26:174). Paratene Ngata said that they had:

Although Ngaati Porou had sent a petition to the Government and under the 'Native Lands Acquisition Bill' land on which they were living was protected from sale they felt that once the land had passed through the Court the Government would begin to buy it from them (ibid:175). They also objected to the new Land Bill, which restored the Crown's pre-emptive right of purchase as it 'leaves the whole mana [price-fixing] in the hands of the Government ... we have to take what is offered to us' (ibid). Judge Gudgeon telegrammed the Government on behalf of Ngaati Porou but a week later he received notification that the Government was 'not disposed'
to curtailing land purchase in the area (copy of Telegram read in Court, Waiapu M.B. 26:184). Paratene Ngata then asked that all the papatipu cases be adjourned indefinitely and the Court granted his request (cf. Judge MacKay's reaction to the withdrawal of cases from the Court in 1886, see page 133). Two weeks later the Court adjourned from the Waiapu district and did not return until 1901; the papatipu cases were not investigated until 1908.

From the contentions over surveys recounted in the 1885-6 Court I suggested that land, like fishing-grounds was commonly-owned or held in trust by large groups composed of several hapuu, perhaps the descendants of [p159] the children of one ancestor. The area within these ancestral boundaries was not divided, although certain parts of it could be closely associated with a particular hapuu for one, two, sometimes several generations. The fact that there was not a single case set up by claimants which corresponded to the surveyed blocks under investigation by the 1894 Court, supports this interpretation.[40]

Traditional accounts of the blocks investigated by this Court session suggest that inland areas of the Matakaoa district were regularly but sporadically occupied while people from several groups seasonally collected and utilised forest resources, mostly food - vegetable foodstuffs, birds and rats, but also timber for canoes, toetoe for insulating houses, flax for clothing, etc. This practice was disrupted by the 1860 warfare although some claimants tried to show ‘permanent occupation’ by claiming allegiance to the King Movement which occupied inland fortified paa (see page 74). After the war food was very scarce and 'people went everywhere searching for food' (Manahi Parapara, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 41:120). People were brought from Waiapu to work these blocks in 1865 (Hoani Huriwai, Mautotara Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:102) and in this sense permanently occupied the land for the next decade. Both claimants and counter claimants emphatically declared that during this period there was no trouble on the land: ‘only since we remained off it that disturbances arose and I knew nothing what caused the interference’ (Keeti te Ahurangi, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 40:59). In 1885 when the survey of these blocks almost escalated into pitched battles (see pages 124-5) the occupation of these blocks either for the growing or collection of food was suspended by the Chiefs (the 'Native' Committees?) until the Court ascertained ownership.[41] By 1894, when the Court finally investigated these blocks (see section II of this chapter for the reason for the delay), Land Court claimants were aware of the importance of demonstrating to the Judge their right of ownership through occupation; the sporadic occupation of the blocks however, [p160] made this difficult. For this reason claimants both at pre-Court meetings and in the Court recounted and in a sense reactivated the disputes over the surveyed boundaries. All the cases investigated in the 1894 Court session revolved around the contention that adjoining blocks were included in the survey: ‘In my opinion a good deal of Hukarere and Makahuri's land was wrongly included in Tokata ... Now they are striving to take away another portion’ (Manahi Parapara, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 42:227); or that parts of the block were not included: 'part of land which belongs to Tamateakui has been left out of the survey - viz. sea coast' (Keeti te Ahurangi, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:296); or that the block under investigation ‘is not a distinct piece of itself’ (Eruera te Rore, Mautotara Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:106).

According to one claimant there were no boundaries between united families (Himiona Apanui, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 40:213) which suggests that one means of settling disputes may have been to create a boundary or strip of 'no man's land' between opposing parties. The
disturbance or interference with boundaries signified war-like intent:

The umu of different people were frequently named by claimants in Court as sites on boundaries:

If, as I have contended, these strips of land were created to maintain a balance of peace between potential rivals and disturbance of them signified war then perhaps, even the guiding of a survey party along them was viewed [p161] as a serious attempt to revive the former dispute.

Certainly in some blocks boundaries were deliberately manipulated: 'I gave the boundaries there, because I was annoyed with Wha-Kahu and wished to defeat them' (Manahi Parapara - of the Tokata Block - Waiapu M.B. 40:100) but this was not always the case. In some investigations claimants' statements appear to directly contradict one another:

but this is difficult to assess since claimants and counter claimants contended that the Mautotara Block was composed of three parts, and the survey party was guided around the outside boundaries of each of these parts by different individuals:

It is clear from the Court evidence that certain people were commonly acknowledged as experts over the question of boundaries (as well as history and whakapapa) and that each group (family or hapuu) had its own expert in this field. The knowledge of these experts however, did not always concur: 'I consider the boundaries explained by Manahi Parapara are wrong each of us know our own history' (Tuhaka Mokena, Totara Block, Waiapu M.B. 25:211).

The divisions between local people over boundaries appears to me to signify much wider issues, namely the Maori and European cultural perceptions of land ownership and truth. Since the aim of this thesis is to explore Maori and European notions of land ownership through the [p162] description of the setting in which the Maori genre was translated into the European form, I shall confine my comments on this occasion to the issue of truth. For the European truth conveys the quality of being in agreement with a standard, a rule, facts, reality (Collins 1980:808). A single, correct and perhaps fixed version. For the Maori tika means ‘correct’, things following their natural or proper order (see page 159). ‘He tikanga, he pononga’ is an expression of emphatic assent, approval, or affirmation (Williams, H. 1975:291). This suggests that like the European notion of truth agreement is necessary but for the Maori the agreement is between people rather than with a fixed standard or rule. Tika appears to be a social conception of truth and different versions of traditions can exist simultaneously in different groups.

Speeches given at hui to decide the title to land[42] have much in common with speeches made at other hui (funerals, weddings, tribal meetings) held on the marae. In both situations the history, the whakapapa and even the boundaries relating to the district are recited to make however, very different points. In the later hui the speechmakers usually utilise their knowledge to link and thereby unite the people present; in the former hui the differences between the people are stressed. The versions of each hapuu are brought into direct conflict and it is clear that land litigation divided the community even more decisively than the 1860 warfare:

Descendants with kin-ties as close as one parent or grand-parent in common frequently opposed one another over take, before Block Committees, and in the Land Court, although in most cases the successful litigant included these kin in the list of owners - ‘not ... thro' right but out of
aroha’ (Waiheke Tureia, Whakararanui Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:234).

In the 1894 and 1908 Court sessions people also set up claims to single cultivations on the block under investigation. They completely denied a right to any other part of the block. These pockets of land within areas utilised by members of another hapuu have generally been gifted in payment for some activity such as avenging a death, building a canoe, ravishing a woman; as a marriage or betrothal gift, even simply out of 'aroha': ‘Tamateakui gave Te Aopare[43] some of maaras on her land and Te Aopare did the same so they could live together’ (Keeti te Ahurangi, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:297). This practice combined with the shifting fortunes of the mana of hapuu hints at the flexibility of rights to land even within one or two generations.

From this discussion and given the particular nature of the history of hapuu, it is small wonder that disputes arose when attempts were made to construct (draw on a map and thereby permanently fix) single lines from boundaries that were traditionally recited as points on the landscape which could be recast to fit the ancestral right being evoked. What I am suggesting is that not only was the 'ownership' of land under constant review, but the ancestral boundaries even between larger groups (cf. page 141) were negotiable and therefore capable of change just as a river, which was often used as a boundary, may change its course.

The claimants in the 1894 Court session began each investigation by naming the portion of the block they claimed (during this session there was not a single claim that corresponded to the whole of the surveyed block [p164] under investigation), and the ancestor from whom their right to the land derived. While this set out their case in Court, it also demonstrated their right to speak. The Judge then arranged the order of the cases. Claimants began their evidence by reciting the boundaries of their claim, or the whakapapa from whom their ancestral right to the land was derived; some claimants recited both. Again this was a statement of their right to speak, and at the same time proof of ownership to the land. From the evidence given in Court knowledge of the history of the land, at least in terms of boundaries, was quite particular. When blocks were surveyed people were entrusted with guiding the survey party part of the way along the boundary:

Knowledge of boundaries was therefore an integral part of the evidence given in Court to prove rights to the land under investigation. Similarly the recitation of detailed traditions and whakapapa suggested knowledge of the land, and if it is accepted, as I believe it was by the Judges, that this knowledge was only reposited in those with rights to the land, then this type of evidence becomes proof of ownership. In the Pakihikura Investigation Hare Paihia read a waiata from a piece of paper in Court. Judge Gudgeon accepted this as proof of ownership: 'in spite of the evidence which is all against the claim of Hare Paihia he might nevertheless be entitled to a share in the land' (Judge Gudgeon, Pakihikura judgment, Waiapu M.B. 24:250). What is problematic in the Judge's interpretation of this scheme of 'particular' knowledge, is that claimants also suggest, in their evidence before the Court, that this knowledge (or aspects of it) was [p165] available on request: ‘I remember when the Court first came here the old men had begun to recount the history of the land before then’ (Pita Rooki, Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:165). Iles (1981:278) says that in 1897, Land Court claimants at Tokomaru Bay also implied that information about the history of the land was freely available. However by 1908 Paratene Ngata, during the title investigation of the Wharekahika Block, stated:

What this suggests is that the Land Court was affecting the transmittal of knowledge to the next generation. Knowledge was traditionally accorded a place of importance in Maori society, but now, in the Land Court, this knowledge had become a weapon to wield for power over land. This is not to suggest that orators did not also employ this knowledge on the marae to upstage their opponents. The difference is that the outcome of the attack in the Land Court was irrevocable. Defeat on the marae, and even in war, always carried with it the possibility of redress on some future occasion; in the Land Court defeat was permanent, the land was lost forever. There is also evidence to suggest that the evidence given by claimants in Court was quickly adapted to meet the local people's interpretation of the criteria used by the Judge. After two judgments were delivered that appeared to favour the claimants who had included a high proportion of traditional history in their cases, the amount of traditional material cited in the 1894 Court session increased.

The methods used to validate this traditional knowledge were principally that it was old and from traditional sources - 'the tradition of it has been handed down' (Ahirau Block, Waiapu M.B. 10:171), widely accepted - 'ancient story and widely known' (Te Harawira Huriwai, Horoera [p166] Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:58), and ‘the boundary of gift by Te Aopare running along Karakatuwhero is very widely known’ (Himiona Apanui, Tapata Block, Waiapu M.B. 43:132), and most importantly was told to the claimant by recognised authorities (recognised by both the local people and the Judge): ‘My tipuna Tamatama, a “pukorero” told me the history of this land’ (ibid).

As outlined in the Court proceedings, Judge Gudgeon’s decisions appear to have been based on the credibility of witnesses. External means, such as written documents, applications for land investigations, etc. were used by the Judge to decide ownership in several of the cases. Whether such faith in the written word was entirely justified is debatable - in 1885, during the rehearing of the Puketauhinu Block, a witness was brought before the Court by Paratene Ngata, the conductor for the Ngaati Porou claimants, to demonstrate his ability at forging signatures (Judge Mair’s Notebook on the Opotiki Court proceedings MS A-31).

There is also some evidence to suggest that mana lines of land and people were important in this Court session: ‘Hukarere had mana whenua as well as mana tangata’ (Manahi Parapara, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:278). Popata Pariohe also described a meeting in 1894 at which it was decided to drop the papatipu (mana whenua) take - land line in favour of the conquest:

The remarks made in Court by claimants suggest that two lines of mana were operating in the Matakaoa district. Marriages were arranged to incorporate these two lines: ‘This land from here up to Matakaoa was all one take but Rerekohu had married the woman of this land’ (Manahi Parapara, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:271). Several of the claims in the Land Court appear to revolve around the concept of rights over land (mana whenua) and rights [p167] over people (mana tangata), but it is not until the 1908-9 Court session that this concept is more explicitly stated by claimants.

In 1898 Prime Minister Seddon and Native Minister James Carroll travelled throughout the country meeting Maori people, listening to their grievances, and proposing solutions. In 1900 the first of a series of Acts were passed which vitally affected the Maori people and their land.

The 1900 Maori Counils Act reinforced and extended pre-existing committees at Waiapu into local Maori councils to administer local affairs. Their recorded activities show that they were especially concerned with health (Gisborne Times 26th March 1902:2; AJHR 1903 G-1:3-4). The country was divided into tribal districts - the Horouta District for the East Coast - each with its own council comprised of representatives from each of the ‘Village Committees’ (cf. 1862 Ruunanga system).

During this period several cases of typhoid fever were reported on the East Coast (Gisborne Times 22nd May 1901:2), as well as epidemics of measles and influenza (AJHR 1896 E-2:6; AJHR 1898 E-2:8; Gisborne Times 27th April 1903:3). In 1901 Dr Davis established an East Coast practice and six months [p168] later Dr Lisle was appointed the District Health officer for the Waiapu County (Gisborne Times 5th February 1901:2; 18th September 1901:3). In 1903 attempts were made to vaccinate all children on ‘The Coast’ (ibid 17th September 1903:2) and in the same year the first Waiapu hospital was opened.

In 1902 some fifteen to sixteen hundred Maori people attended a Hui at Waiomatatini to discuss the ‘Kotahitanga o te Tiriti’, that is the Maori Parliament, and the Maori Councils (Te Pipiwharauroa 20th March 1902). According to the Native Minister, James Carroll, unanimous support for both the Maori Councils and the Land Councils (see page 169) was expressed at this meeting (Gisborne Times 3rd April 1902:3). Williams (1977:114) contends that these Councils overstepped the powers given to them, and on the East Coast several hapuu withdrew their support because, according to Apirana Ngata, they had been ‘led astray by agitators’. This was nothing new, my research of the Matakaoa district shows that local opinion was and probably always will be mixed, and ‘Village Committees’ or at least Committees on the hapuu level continued to exist with or without government legislation.

The period from 1886 to 1894 saw the beginning of large scale sheep-farming at Waiapu. The years that followed, consolidated this as the primary industry in the Ngaati Porou district. Maize, corn, barley, and wheat continued to be cropped successfully but dairy-herding, pig-raising, poultry and bee keeping, fruit tree cropping, grape and hop growing, and vegetable cultivation - cabbages, carrots, turnips, peas - were suggested as viable alternatives (Paratene Ngata, Te Pipiwharauroa August 1910). During the summer months when hundreds of Ngaati Porou travelled to Poverty Bay to work in the rye-grass industry (Kohere, R. 1951:47), women and children virtually kept the Ngaati Porou farms afloat (McConnell, R. 1980). In 1899 Apirana Ngata estimated that over 3,000 acres of Ngaati Porou land had passed to the Crown since 1893. The three types of land retained by [p169] Maori people were blocks leased to Pakeha, on which Maori people gained skills to work the land - clearing bush, fencing, shearing sheep, sowing pasture, etc; land awarded to Maori owners by the Court; and papatipu land, most of which had been surveyed (He Kupu Whakamarama September 1899:7-8). In the early years of the new century special land meetings were held throughout the Waiapu area (Gisborne Times 14th July 1902:3) and every attempt was made by Apirana Ngata to encourage the visible utilisation of all land still under Maori control (cf. 1905 Native Lands Act and the Stout-Ngata Land Commission 1907-9 re: land unsuitable for Native occupation, see page 169). in 1903 a branch of the New Zealand Farmers Union was founded at Tuparoa (ibid 16th July:3) and by 1920 the Waiapu district was so prosperous that a further County Council - the Matakaoa County Council - was formed with headquarters at Te Araroa.

In 1900 the Maori Lands Administration Act empowered the Maori Land Councils set up under the 1900 Maori Councils Act to alienate and administer Maori land (Introduction to the 1909 Native Lands Act xxiii). Each Council consisted of one European president (a Judge of the Native Land Court), two or three appointed members (one of whom was to be Maori), and two or three Maori members elected from the land district of the Council (McRae, J. 1981:65). Although their jurisdiction overlapped that of the Native Land Court their activities were not directly concerned with the investigation of titles to land. Under this Act Maori claimants of papatipu blocks were empowered to elect a committee of five to nine members to investigate the title to land. Their decision however had to be ratified first by the Land Council and then by the Land Court. Any objections to the Comittees’ decisions were heard by the Land Council and if they could not be resolved were referred to the Land Court (ibid:66).

In the 1905 Maori Lands Settlement Act these Land Councils were renamed Land Boards. They were given extensive powers to lease or mortgage land on [p170] behalf of Maori owners, but without their consent, provided the Native Minister declared the land unsuitable for Native occupation. The criteria used for this decision is uncertain, however Ngaati Porou attempts to visibly utilise all their land in farming and cropping suggests it was probably the familiar cry of 'idle land' (cf. Earl Grey's 1846 Despatch page 19). This jurisdiction was also extended to all Maori land, including 'papatipu' blocks, for which rates were payable, but remained unpaid[44] (Introduction to the 1909 Native Lands Act). In 1906 this power was further extended to all Maori land infested with noxious weeds (ibid), and in 1907 land reported as not required for Maori occupation by the Stout-Ngata Commission,[45] could be disposed of by the Land Boards - half by sale and the other half by lease for a period not exceeding fifty years (ibid).

The Maori Land Council on the East Coast was presided over by Judge Barton. He was assisted by John Townley, Edward Joyce, and Heta te Kani from Uawa (He Kupu Whakamarama, January 1902:5). In 1902 Barton resigned (Gisborne Times 26th June 1902:2) and Colonel Porter,[46] the former Government Land Purchase Commissioner appointed by Ngaati Porou at the 1874 Wharekahika Hui, was appointed president. When the Land Councils became Land Boards, Porter retained his position. Although the Matakaoa Committees set up under the 1883 Native Committees Act were empowered to act under the 1900 legislation, and titles to papatipu blocks were investigated by Committees, since the 1908-9 Land Court investigations are packed with references to evidence given before these Committees, neither the Land Council nor the Land Board conferred title to a single acre of Matakaoa land. I can only assume from the divisive take set up in the Land Court in 1908 that this was because the objections brought before the Land Board were unable to be resolved.

The blocks investigated by this Court include Marangairoa No. 2, Marangairoa 1A (Whakararanui), Marangairoa 1B (Horoera), Wharekahika, and Tapatu Waitangirua. These blocks were surveyed just prior to the 1894 Court session. Reports of surveys frequently disrupted, trig stations overturned, theodolites confiscated, trees felled around the survey party as it was observing, as well as threats to shoot Maoris pointing out boundaries (Wheeler cited in Jourdain, W. 1925:221) clearly suggest that local feeling over the passage of the ‘whenua tuturu’ (created by the 1875 proclamation) through the Court was strongly divided.

When the Land Court opened at Tuparoa in February 1908 Judge Sim, the former Registrar of the Maori Land Boards (established under the 1900 Maori Lands Administration Act), granted the local people’s request to adjourn the Court to Te Araroa, as several large blocks were to be investigated there (Waiapu M.B. 36:1). He added that the Court ‘would do everything to assist the Natives and facilitate the business’ (ibid).

The Court was held in Hovell’s Hall. Most of the litigants from former sessions were present. Their speeches of welcome, although not recorded in entirety, suggest that several of the claimants viewed the Land Court more favourably than their own Papatipu Block Committees established by the 1900 Act (see McRae, J. 1981 for an account of the effectiveness of these Committees in Tai Tokerau):

The Court suggested that to ‘save both the Natives and itself time and [p172] trouble’ the recorded minutes of the Papatipu Block Committee’s investigations of title would be made available. It was however, possible for anyone to set up a case to the land whether they had appeared before the Conunittee or not. Then a discussion arose over the order in which the cases should be investigated. Several litigants stated that the elders had decided at a meeting that the Marangairoa No. 2 Block should be taken first; almost as many urged that Tapatu and Wharekahika - ‘fresh food’ - should be investigated first. The Judge said that since Marangairoa No. 2 had been investigated first by the Papatipu Committee, and ‘it seemed to be the wish of the elders and people that Marangairoa No. 2 should be first’ (ibid:3), then that case would open the session. Judge Sim requested all parties to lodge a whakapapa with the Court before going on with their case.

At pre-Court meetings the combined knowledge about the particular ancestors of those present was appraised. If the accounts proved to be too fragmentary, both in terms of content and narrowness (leaving out some of those present at the meeting), then another ancestor was put forward:

Each case opened with a debate over the order in which claims to the block were to be heard by the Judge. Each party was required to briefly state their claim, and people in Court with interests in the block, who had not yet applied for an investigation, were given the opportunity to join their claim to others, or to set up claims of their own. So many claims were set up at the beginning of the Wharekahika investigation that Judge Sim, having looked over the cases, suggested that many of the take overlapped, and requested claimants ‘possessing common take’ to unite, as it was ‘not in [p173] the interests of either the Natives nor the Court that a case should be split into several divisions’ (Waiapu M.B. 40:13). To foster the amalgamation of claims the Court adjourned for the afternoon, and it was not until the next morning that the order of the cases was finally decided. Some of the parties claimed several different portions of the block, and set up different take to each portion. Others set up more than one take over the whole block:

and still other parties, as in the 1894 Court session, claimed single maara (cultivations) on the block under investigation:

In the 1894 Court session boundaries were given only by some claimants; in 1908 several claimants opened their cases by giving the boundaries of the portion they claimed. In every case where the block adjoined the sea, the coastline was given as the boundary. There were few accounts given in this session about surveys (cf. the 1885-6 and 1894 Court sessions), although negotiations with the Government for timber leases, the port and township at Hicks Bay, etc. were elaborated. More information was given about the King Movement and its effect on the area, than in any other session. The two claimants who particularly emphasised this material both fought on the ‘Government side’, on the East Coast and in Taranaki, in their youth. As both claimants occupied the land under investigation during the period of [p174] warfare, their accounts illustrated both their loyalty to the Government and occupation. Descriptions of the tribal meetings (1872 Mataahu, 1874 Wharekahika, 1875 Horoera and Pakihi) were also given, although it is not clear whether these were viewed as significantly by the Judge as the local people. There were also a number of references to cannibalism and spiritual practices:

As in 1894, claimants were generally represented by kaiwhakahaere (conductors), most of whom were part of the ‘educated’ (in Pakeha schools), up and coming generation. The older Chiefs often conducted their own cases. By this Court session most of the parties were well versed in Land Court tactical procedure. Several claimants when confronted by contradictions in their evidence, either from former Court sessions or before Block Connittees, pleaded inexperience during that time: ‘I was inexperienced in Court work when I said Tamakoro’s land was between Tauranga-Kautuku and Kopuapounamu’ (Himiona Apanui, Tapatu Block, Waiapu M.B. 42:132).

The 1908-9 Court procedure included many of the characteristics of former sittings. The focus of evidence however, shifted markedly from survey dispute to traditional histories and occupation. Most of the blocks investigated in this session are coastal, and during the 1840’s and 1850’s, when Ngaati Porou experimented so successfully with introduced crops, this was the land on which they were grown. Occupation and cultivation of the land was demonstrated by naming maara on the land. Crops such as kuumara, [p175] and taro appeared to have been the special concerns of family groups, while karaka, fern root, etc. were harvested from the same site by several groups. In this Court session claimants referred to the cultivation of mussel rocks[47] : ‘[we] set up a rahui so that we might cultivate. The rahui referred to is that over the kukus mussels’ (Keeti te Ahurangi, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 40:63), and the harvesting of named fishing grounds. Like maara on the land mussel rocks were ‘owned’ by family groups, while fishing grounds were not divided, but held in joint ownership by several hapuu:

In former Court sessions kaiwhakahaere (conductors) were prevented from giving evidence under the rules of judicial practice, their function being to present the case and cross-examine. In Judge Sim’s Court however, they were permitted to supplement their witnesses’ evidence, provided the information could not be supplied by any other witness in their case (Waiapu M.B. 42:129). The questioning of witnesses by kaiwhakahaere was for the first time recorded in the minute books. Some of the kaiwhakahaere favoured the use of evidence from former Court sessions - Papatipu Block Committee Minute Books, Appellate Court Minute Books, and Native Land Court Minute Books - to cross-examine their opponent’s witnesses:

Te Hati Houkamau cross-examined by Waiheke Tureia, Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:156).

The Court accepted the validity of both traditions and whakapapa provided they had been recited undisputed in former Court sessions:

In the 1908 Court session there was a shift to using written rather than oral debates. By 1908 family traditions, formerly handed down in oral form, had been recorded in books. Members of families faced with objections to their account of traditions or whakapapa by counter claimants, produced these books in Court to validate their evidence:

Gazetted applications for Court hearings[48] , which had been pivotal in the 1894 Court judgments, were also produced, either to contradict boundaries given in 1908, or to show by their early date, the justness of the litigant’s claim to ownership (Hohepa Karapaina, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 41:190).

In Judge MacKay’s Court there was no record that conductors summed up their evidence. In Judge Gudgeon’s Court claimants sometimes read a prepared statement aloud in Court at the end of their case, but appeared reluctant to address the Court (Waiapu M.B. 14:312). In 1908 the claimants of each case addressed the Court at length. During the final summing up in the Horoera investigation, the Court sat late into the night for two days before the speeches (of eleven claimants) were completed (Waiapu M.B. 39:171-2).

In Judge Sim’s Court of 1908 the Assessor, Haaka Tautuhi, (of Waikato?) played an active role. He conducted most of the Court’s cross-examination of witnesses. The only other Court in which the Judge and Assessor appeared to equally share responsibility for the Court was in Judge Rogan’s 1875 Court. Like Gudgeon, Sim and Tautuhi’s judgments spanned some ten-twelve pages. In every case the land was made inalienable except by way of lease. When Henare Ahuriri, the conductor of Wi Arapata’s claim to Wharekahika, asked the Court to take the cripple, Henare Koronga’s evidence by Commission, the Court said that:

When the Marangairoa No. 2 judgment was read, Waiheke Tureia suggested that the Court had merely followed the Block Committee’s decision. However the Judge contended that both he and the Assessor:

As will be recalled from the 1885-6 session negotiations were made with the Court to lower the cost of investigations. Where land was sold or leased to the Government money was advanced for the survey or its cost subtracted from the total payment for the block. Where land was retained by owners, as in 1894, survey liens (Aruhemokopuna Block) were charged against the land, which meant that the land had to be sold or leased to meet costs. However where land such as the papatipu blocks, that is the ‘whenua tuturu’ were surveyed and later investigated by the Court some other means of raising money had to be found. The cost to set up cases in Court in 1875, at least for the Matakaoa Block, was £2-0-0 for the hearing and £1-0-0 for the Memorial of Ownership (Gisborne M.B. 2:167); in 1885-6 costs were briefly nothing, and then £1-0-0 per witness, 2/- for swearing [p179] in, and £l-0-0 for a Certificate of Title - for the Aruhemokopuna Block this amounted to £15-0-0 for the hearing and £4-0-0 for the Order of Ownership (Waiapu M.B. 11:131); in 1894 the cost was £1-2-0 per day per witness, £1-0-0 per day per cross-examination, plus £1-0-0 for an Order of Ownership - in the Mautotara Block the Judge awarded four separate pieces at £1-0-0 each (Waiapu M.B. 24:358); in 1908 the costs for witnesses and cross-examinations remained approximately the same, but with several cases set up in Court for every block, each with two or three witnesses, the overall cost of the Court proceedings increased dramatically. Subscriptions were collected to meet the costs of the survey and the Court, and from the number of disputes in Court over omissions in the ownership lists, it is clear that support for the people in Court, in subscriptions or by supplying them with food, was necessary to ensure a place in the lists of ownership:

Included in the Judge’s decision was the number of shares to be allocated to each descendant group of the ancestor awarded ownership. People were appointed by locals to be in charge of these lists. Claimants who had been unsuccessful in the first round of litigation were frequently found to be in control of at least one list, apparently in conjunction with their former opponents. The take set up in the investigation of title (the first [p180] round) may have been divisive, but people had more than one line of descent. In the second round (ascertainment of lists of owners) different lines of descent, which linked opponents, were evoked. Meetings were convened outside the Court, generally at HINERUPE marae, to decide the names to include in the list of owners and the allocation of shares. With people going directly from the Court to these ‘list’ discussions, the amount of time spent on land matters was considerable. By 1908 disputes over the allocation of shares was common practice. Litigants took these disputes into the Court to be settled by the Judge, and further evidence of traditional histories and whakapapa were recounted of shares to be allocated to each descendant group of the ancestor awarded ownership. People were appointed by locals to be in charge of these lists. Claimants who had been unsuccessful in the first round of litigation were frequently found to be in control of one list, apparently in conjunction with their former opponent. Meetings were convened outside the Court, generally at HINERUPE marae, to decide the names to include in the list and the allocation of shares. By 1908 disputes over the allocation of shares was common practice. Litigants took these disputes into the Court to be settled by the Judge, and further evidence of traditional histories and whakapapa were recounted during these investigations. Claimants stated that people were included in the lists of ownership for several reasons:

This suggests that even within the fixed tenure created by the Land Court people found a little room to manoeuvre.

The methods employed to validate evidence in this Court session are both Maori and Pakeha. Meetings, and the decisions of elders are still used to justify or validate evidence in Court, but so are written documents. More than in any other Court session, evidence that had been acceptable to earlier Courts was produced as ‘proof’ to demonstrate ownership of land. This proof was also used to undermine the credibility of witnesses. While there appear to be few accounts of survey disputes, at least in comparison to the evidence given in the 1885-6 Court session, I suggest that this is because the disputes have shifted to become open challenges of traditional histories and whakapapa. Written, and by implication fixed, accounts are being used as the weapons in this challenge.

In the evidence given before the Court during this session claimants refer persistently to their own movement across the landscape:

This suggests that not only in the lifetime of the people in Court but even [p182] in pre-contact times there was an ebb and flow of people across the landscape. Harawira Huriwai stated the people shifted their residence out of ‘good feeling’ and their relationship with others (Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:27). He also pointed out that some of the people who have rights to the Horoera Block live at Waiapu, some at Kawakawa, some up Awatere River, and that they are called Wha Tuterangiwhiu, Wha Kopuni, Wha Hunaara, Wha Kahuteiro (Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:94). Another claimant, Popata Pariohe claimed that hapuu names were dependent on residence: ‘When they lived on this side of Takanga they were known as Wha Te Aopare. At Takanga they were known as Wha Tuwhakairioraiti’ (Tapatu Block, Waiapu M.B. 43:186); while Henare Koronga suggests that even take to land could shift: ‘No permanent “take’s” there. Those I had were ancient ones which I do not now recognise’ (Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 40:311). Therefore it appears that not only was occupation fluid, but also rights to land and the name one evoked to claim these rights.

In the evidence given before the Court in this session, claimants for the first time refer to rights to land growing cold, apparently in response to the Land Court:

There is also some indication that shortly before Land Court sessions commenced, groups of claimants travelled to blocks firstly, to familiarise themselves with the land and the sites of occupation, and secondly, to warm up their rights to the land:

People also began to occupy all their rights to land for limited periods to ensure their residence patterns fitted the criteria used by the Court in awarding title to land: ‘he knew that residence would save the land so he went back to Waiapu’ (Hana te Rore, Pakihikura Block, Waiapu M.B 24:185).

Evidence given in this session also suggests that ownership was, prior to the awards of title made by the Land Court, quite flexible. People were placed on land: ‘Anaru’s occupation at Horoera was not ancestral, it was Te Mokena who placed both Anaru and Karepa on the land’ (Te Hatawira Houkamau, Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:144); and maara (cultivations) were gifted in exchange for avenging death, tattooing, building canoes, etc. There is some indication that boundaries were fixed to settle disputes in former times (Manahi Parapara, Tokata Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:266), however a number of groups could live on the same land at different times (Paora Taihaaki, Ahomatariki Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:230). Local Matakaoa people referred to the land in terms of a named ancestor rather than a block throughout their cases. In 1879 a boundary between the two tribes Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngaati Porou was fixed (Hohepa Karapaina, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 41:223).

Another theme which emerges from all the judgments delivered in this Court session is that the blocks were occupied by what Judge Sim termed ‘papatipu people’:

Claimants in this Court session persistently distinguish between two lines of descent, mana whenua (authority over land) or papatipu and mana tangata (authority over people):

The claims to the block investigated in this session revolve around the two rights to land. Even claimants whose take was reliant on mana tangata admit: ‘Tuwhakairiora had no land rights his right was his descent from Porourangi and his ringakaha’ (Te Hati Houkamau, Horoera Block, Waiapu M.B. 39:134), this claimant also suggested however that the ‘papatipu is not a reliable “take” ’ (Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 40:23). Another claimant pointed out to the Court that the ringakaha (mana tangata) over papatipu (mana whenua) had been accepted by former Court sessions (Popata Pariohe, Tapatu Block, Waiapu M.B. 43:183). The relationship between the two lines:

The early Court sessions (1885-6) awarded ownership of land primarily to mana tangata lines - conquests of land and people. In 1908 the judgments based principally on occupation (which as I have suggested was in a constant state of flux) favoured the papatipu or mana whenua line. judgment in favour of either line denies the fact that these two lines had co-existed (peacefully?) for several generations.

The evidence given in this session suggests a constant ebb and flow of people across the landscape. An almost equally fluid potential ownership of land, and that land and sea were both ‘owned’; smaller portions - maara of mussels and vegetable foodstuffs were the special concerns of family groups (hapuu?), while fishing grounds and bush reserves were ‘owned’ jointly and utilised jointly by several groups (hapuu) linked by descent [p185] from a common ancestor.

In the 1875 Court local people claimed whole blocks under a tribal name; the boundaries were defined by the surveyor’s map and no whakapapa was given, and only the briefest of tribal history. In 1885-6 whole blocks as defined by the surveyor’s map were again claimed, and only one hapuu (not tribal) name was given: ‘I live at Te Kawakawa. My hapu is Te Whanau-a-Hinerupe of Te Whanau-a-Tuwhakairiora tribe’ (Piniha te Rito, Aruhemokopuna Block, Waiapu M.B. 11:243). This session was the first in which whakapapa appeared in the evidence, and it will be recalled the Matakaoa district was fraught with survey disputes. The two Judges began to apportion titles to land between groups (e.g. Aruhemokopuna judgment, Waiapu M.B. 11). In 1894 claimants went into Court and claimed only portions of the surveyed land: ‘I know the land Pakihikura - claim only part of this land’ (Manahi Parapara, Pakihikura Block, Waiapu M.B. 24:150). For the first time claimants gave brief boundaries, and more than one hapuu name to the land. In 1908 the claims to portions even include single maara on the land under investigation. Boundaries and whakapapa were given in every claim. For the first time however in Court whakapapa was disputed. This suggests that local people in their evidence in Court attempted to accommodate European concepts of ownership to fit their own. Not only was occupation, fixed ownership, and land rather than sea ownership stressed, but the way people set up their claims to the land in the Land Court was also tailored to fit the individual Land Court Judges criteria of ownership.

NOTES

Chapter 4

[1] By negotiative I include the whole gamut of interaction from co-operation and adjustment through to protest and warfare.

[2] In 1900 this role was handed to the Maori Land Councils under the Maori Land Administration Act.

[3] Court sessions were held at Opotiki (about eighty miles north of Te Araroa), Waipiro, Waiomatatini, Port Awanui (about thirty miles south of Te Araroa), and Uawa (about eighty miles south of Te Araroa) from 1875 to 1886.

[4] Of four cases heard before the Appellate Court at Waipiro in 1895, only one former judgment was left unaltered (Judge Mair, W.G. Diary 21st January-26th March MS-A31).

[5] Local people applied to have their land (surveyed blocks) investigated by the Court. These applications were gazetted in Te Kahiti along with the date of the Court investigation of title to notify all interested (those with claims) parties.

[6] Porter, who fought alongside the Government-side leader Ropata Wahawaha (see footnote 11) in 1868 at Ngatapa, and pursued Te Kooti through the Urewera country in 1870-2, married a close relation of the Chief Henare Potae of Tokomaru Bay. He was very close to Ropata Wahawaha - published a book on Ropata’s life - almost like a son. In 1874 at the Wharekahika Hui of Iharaira Te Houkamau, he was appointed by Ngaati Porou (in preference to Wilson who already had been appointed by the Government) as the Government Land Commissioner for the Waiapu. The Chief Herewini Tamahori claimed Porter had ‘grown up amongst them’ and Tamati Kakano said his ‘worth was known to all the people’ (Te Waka Maori, Wharekahika Hui Report lst December 1874:286-8).

[7] Only people whose names were included in the list of awarded owners could apply for a rehearing, and then it was over to the discretion of the Chief Judge (1873 Native Lands Act).

[8] In at least one case the judgment, which took two days to read, was given solely in English in Court (Judge Mair, W. Diary 12th March 1900 of Judge MacKay).

[9] One of the Wharekahika Chiefs who attended the conference at Kohimaarama in 1860 (see page 61).

[10] cf. Judges of 1885-1886, 1894 and 1908.

[p187]

[11] Ropata Wahawaha was a key figure in land negotiations between Ngaati Porou and Government. In 1865, during the fighting between the Hauhau and the Government at Waiapu, Ropata Wahawaha distinguished himself as one of the Ngaati Porou leaders who fought on the Government-side. In 1868 he led the Ngaati Porou contingent against Te Kooti at Ngatapa (inland from Gisborne), and from 1870-2 he, accompanied by Porter (see footnote 6), pursued Te Kooti through the Urewera country. In 1878 he was presented with a Sword of Honour and appointed to the Legislative Council. He died at Gisborne in 1897 and was buried with full military honours at Waiomatatini (MacKay, J. 1949:297).

[12] Te Hatiwira Houkamau distinguished himself in leading, with Paratene Ngata, a contingent of Ngaati Porou to Taranaki in 1867. As the eldest son of the Ariki Iharaira Te Houkamau he became, on his father’s death, the Chief of Te Whanau-a-Tuwhakairiora. Like his father, he actively negotiated with Government to bring peace between the two peoples - Maori and Pakeha. He was a key figure in all the Land Court sessions held on the East Coast.

[13] ‘When in Court, to support that claim, I always swore to the truth on your Bible. I rubbed my nose well on it, and then I traced my descent ... ’ (Kowhia Ngutu Kaka in McDonnell n.d.:495).

[14] These rent receivers were closely related high-ranking elders (or Chiefs) from Wharekahika (Hicks Bay).

[15] Mana generally descends through Chiefly lines by primogeniture. Mokena Kohere’s eldest son, Hone Mokena only appears in the Court minute books as an advisor or mediator, never as a witness or a claimant, although his name is included in ownership lists (1885-1886 Court sittings). He never appears to be in a position to be judged or his authority questioned, in fact Judge MacKay and Judge Wilson asked his advice. Another son of Mokena Kohere, Tuhaka Mokena conducted several cases.

[16] Rogan and his Assessors appear to have worked closely together: ‘The judgment given had been agreed upon between me and the Assessor ... ’ (Rogan, AJHR 1877 G-5:39); ‘The judgment of Waingaromia No. 2 was mostly mine ... ’ (Hone Peti, ibid:40).

[17]

‘Preparations are being made at Waiapu for a large meeting, to be held shortly, to celebrate the opening of a carved house built for a chief called Anaru te Kahaki ... Invitations have been sent by Ngatiporou to people of other districts to attend this meeting. The business will not be confined to local matters, but questions affecting the Maori race generally will be discussed. The meeting, I believe, has reference to a movement instituted by Ngapuhi, bearing on the Treaty of Waitangi’
Brooking, J. AJHR 1883 G-1A:8).

[p188]

[18] Cf.

‘Tuta Nihoniho, the well-known Ngati-Porou chief, had committed a breach of the law and, on a visit to Gisborne, he was arrested. In those early days, for a chief to be arrested was, from a Maori point of view, unthinkable. My grandfather [Mokena Kohere] happened to be in Gisborne at the time and, in dismay, the Maoris told him what had happened. He summed up the situation and agreed that it was a disgrace that a relative of his and a fellow tribesman should be arrested and imprisoned. He hastened to meet the policeman and his charge, then he grabbed Tuta’s hand and pulled him from the officer. The officer remonstrated and told Mokena that Tuta had broken the law. The chief then clapped his forehead with his hand and said, “I am the law”. The officer wisely said nothing’
Kohere, R. 1951:133-4).

[19] For a comprehensive account of these Committees see Jane McRae’s 1981 thesis - Participation: Native Committees (1883) and Papatupu Block Committees (1900) in Tai Tokerau.

[20] Under the 1874 Land Amendment Act a majority of shareholders were required to sign their agreement for sale, lease, or mortgage of their land. The 1878 Amendment Act, the Native Land Court Act of 1880, the 1883 Amendment Act, and the 1886 Native Land Administration Act, all reinforced the intention of the 1874 Amendment Act. It was possible to circumvent these restrictions (except for the 1886 Act) by lodging an application for a partition with the Land Court.

[20] A block south of the Waiapu River and therefore outside the Matakaoa district.

[22] He continued: ‘There were two great chiefs of Ngatiporou - Te Hokamo, who is dead, and Tamanui Tera, who is the great surviving chief’ (Wi Pewhairangi, AJHR 1885 G-1:74).

[23] Cf. the spread of the Paimarire religion and the Hauhau Movement in the 1860’s.

[24] During the Ngamoe title investigation the kuia Tuihana Tawhiri wanted to set up a claim in her own right. Tuta Nihoniho informed the Court that she was his senior relation. When the Court asked her why she disclaimed connection with her own tribe, ‘she explained that she had lost one of her cases by her first cousin’s mismanagement of it’. The Court would not allow her to set up a separate case (Waiapu M.B. 11:86).

[25] Cf. page 133.

[26] Hori Ropiha accompanied King Tawhiao to England to request the Queen to fulfill the promises of the Treaty of Waitangi in regard to the large land confiscations suffered by Waikato after the 1860 warfare.

[p189]

[27] A descendant of one of the claimants in this case has written a thesis relating the history of this block. The thesis concludes with a discussion of the Waipiro investigation by the Land Court (Te Awarau, W.M. 1927).

[28] Claimants in the Land Court never referred to any other Court sessions in this way.

[29] This Bill later became the 1886 Equitable Owners Act. Under the 1873 Native Lands Act, all shares to land had to be decided by the adjudged owners and confirmed by the Land Court. Court sessions were often involved in disputes over share allocation. This Act, by awarding equal rights, that is equal shares to all owners tried to overcome this problem, but at the same time it meant that people with more than one line of descent to the land (and therefore more than one right to the land) were disadvantaged, and high-born people - rangatira lines - were made equivalent, in terms of shares received, to ‘slaves’.

[30]

Ko tena te Wirihana, he pakeke - he pukeko no Opotiki’
- That one, Wilson is a hard (obstinate, difficult, stiff) man - a water hen from Opotiki’
(Te Waka Maori 17th November 1874:287).

He was rejected as the Government Land Commissioner for the Ngaati Porou district in favour of Porter (ibid).

[31] The reason for shifting the Court to Awanui given in the Minute Book was ‘that a fever of a malignant form had appeared at Waiomatatini’ (Waiapu M.B. 11:232).

[32] In all but one case of survey dispute cited during the title investigations by the 1885-6 Court, Government land purchase was involved.

[33] When Te Hati Houkamau and Hare Kopakopa were sent by Iharaira Te Houkamau to stop the European confiscation survey of Wharekahika (see page 124) the intent of menace may well have been the same.

[34] Harris made the same point in 1891 before the Native Lands Commission at Turanganui (AJHR 1891 G-1).

[35] Manahi Parapara and Te Hatiwira Houkamau shared the same mother, a woman of high-rank, Ripeka Te Paremamaku. She was married to Iharaira Te Houkamau until the missionary Rota Waitoa told Te Houkamau that to be a Christian he must have only one wife. She remarried and Manahi was one of the offspring of this union. Manahi Parapara, like so many Matakaoa people of his generation, appears to have been part of the Ngaati Porou contingent sent to Taranaki in 1867. From 1894, he became one of the key figures in the Land Court of Matakaoa.

[p190]

[36] Ripeka Te Paremamaku, Mere Katene’s sister and the mother of Manahi Parapara and Te Hatiwira Houkamau appears to have kept aloof from the Land Court (cf. Mokena Kohere page 116).

[37] In the cross-examination of Mereana Waipauhu in the investigation of the Mautotara Block Renata Tihore recited a whakapapa and asked her whether it was true, she replied ‘all the people you mention belong here but don’t know if they have a right’ (Waiapu M.B. 24:135).

[38] Contention in this Court was less than in 1908, yet the 1908 judgments were much shorter. The length of judgment reflects, I believe, the style in which Judge Gudgeon conducted his Court.

[39] By the age of seven Eruera Kawhia Stirling had been taught important aspects of history, whakapapa and boundaries of the big blocks around Raukokore (Stirling/Salmon 1976:154).

[40] Judge Gudgeon also suggested:

Hinerupe [an ancestress] did not divide her lands among her descendants, but left it to them in common and this being the case it results that all those of her descendants who continued to reside here had an undoubted right to the lands of this ancestor a right that in the opinion of the Court was never disputed until recently’
(Omaika judgment, Waiapu M.B. 25:237A:2).

[41]

‘If there had been no agreement [over the Whangaparaoa/Wharekahika boundary] the dispute would have been decided by the Court’
(Paratene Ngata, Wharekahika Block, Waiapu M.B. 42:128).

[42] This includes meetings to decide the take, Block Committees and the Land Court and meetings to decide the lists of names to be attached to the title.

[43] These two women were sisters and famed ancestors of the Matakaoa district.

[44] Under the 1904 Native Lands Rating Act rates were payable on all Maori land previously investigated and awarded title by the Native Land Court (Introduction to the 1909 Native Lands Act).

[45] Stout-Ngata Land Commission sat from 1907 to 1908.

Their purpose was not to provide new means of opening up Maori land, but to designate which land should be dealt with by each of the existing means - meet Maori owners on their own ground, and decide on the spot what areas are required for their use and what they are willing to have opened for settlement’
(Williams, J. 1977:128).

[46] Porter had recently returned from active duty - leading the East Coast Hussar to the Boer War.

[47]

'Now not far from the Taumata area there are 3 rocks - mussel rocks, belonging to the family - like Makarita's family and granny Peti's, etc. Makarita was the diver member of the family and she took charge of these rocks. All down the family line these rocks have been known as 'specials' for the family only. If an outsider ventured on to the rocks he or she was looking for trouble as these rocks were guarded by 'Mutu' a stingray with no sword, hence the name 'Mutu''
(Ereti Collier in McConnell, R. 1980:86).

[48] See footnote 5.

A gazetted application for a Court hearing

15 Katene, Ngatoko, Manahi Parapara
Keeti te Ahurangi, Popata Matera (8-3) Tokata.. .. .. Timata i Mangarau, Puhitoroa Tokotaa, Te Kauanga,
Te Iringa o Manuka, Horahora Ngarehu, ka ahu whaka waho, Te Mapou, Moanui, ka ahu
whaka runga te Waiparuparu Taumataiti, Oruakarahea,
Te Karaka, Pukemanuka, Pohatu a Tamapikotahi,
ka heke ki Wairenga, reretonu i te raina
o Pukeamaru, Te Reretitaha, Te Reretotara,
whakaeke ki Nikuroa, Te Rakato Omarutaha Rua
a Kairahui, Taiporutu, Urukawakawa, taputu ki
Karakatuhero, ka ahu whaka waho Te Mahia
Tainga o te Riaki, Opure, Te Rongookino Manukaraina,
Te Mako, Te Rimu, riini ano ki Mangarau.

(Te Kahiti o Niu Tirani 7 Tihema, 1893).

1983 Gail H. Dallimore

[ Next - Chapter 5, Glossary and Bibliography ] [ Back to Contents and Introduction ] [ Complete Thesis ]