._.... .· · " ToFFltIAll - ~~---·--__ w ••~m . ",. w •• ~ •..•• !;;7:t~ '1;7 --- -· ··1
/;1Jcu .gq!L *'/J b3,
Matahina Block
A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 36/386, Wai 46, Wai 212, and Wai 726
by
Philip Cleaver
December 1999 Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2 Table of Maps and List of Tables 5 Abbreviations 6 Author 6
Introduction 7
1. Traditional Use and Occupation of the Matahina Block
1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Summary of the Available Evidence 14
2. Crown Purchasing Activities, 1876-1881
2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 The Operations of Land Purchase Officers Henry Mitchell and Charles Davis 17 2.3 Strategies for the Acquisition of Land: Leasing and the Use of Advances 18 2.4 Leasing and Negotiations for the Purchase of the Matahina Block 19 2.5 Summary 22
3. Title Investigation of the Matahina Block 6 September 1881 - 21 September 1881
3.1 The Claimants and Counter-Claimants 23 3.2 The Case of Patuheuheu 25 3.3 The Case ofNgati Rangitihi 28 3.4 The Case ofNgati Hamua 31 3.5 The Case ofNgati Hinewai 34 3.6 The Case ofNgati Awa 36 3.7 The Court's Judgement 45
4. Between the Title Investigation and Rehearing, 1881 - 1884
4.1 Attempt by the Crown to Defme its Interest in the Matahina Block 47 4.2 Events Leading to the Rehearing of the Matahina Title Investigation 49 4.3 Summary 51
5. Rehearing of the Matahina Block Title Investigation 31 January 1881 - 18 February 1884
5.1 The Claimants and Counter-Claimants 52 5.2 The Case ofNgati Haka, Ngati Manawa, and Ngati Hamua 54 5.3 The Case ofNgati Rangitihi 56 5.4 The Case of Hakaraia and Mihi Peka, Presented by Wi Hapi 57 5.5 The Case ofNgati Awa 58 5.6 The Court's Judgement 61
2 6. The Division of the Matahina Block and the Taking of Matahina A6 for Survey and Other Costs
6.1 The Division of the Matahina Block 62 6.2 The Taking of Matahina A6 for Survey and Other Costs 64 6.3 Summary 66
7. Survey Charging Orders and the Partition of Matahina A1, 1891
7.1 The Survey of the Matahina Block Subdivisions, 1885 68 7.2 The Ordering of Survey Charging Orders, 1891 68 7.3 The Partition of Matahina AI, 1891 68 7.4 Negotiations for the Private Purchase of the Matahina Block, 1882-1883 71 7.5 Summary 73
8. The Taking of Land for Survey Charges from Matahina B, C, C1, and D, 1907
8.1 The Crown's Acquisition of Mitchell's Survey Charges 74 8.2 The Cutting Out of the Crown's Interest, 1907 74 8.3 Appeal by the Owners of Matahina D, 1909 77 8.4 Discussion 78 8.5 Summary 81
9. Crown's Attempted Purchase of Matahina A1D, A2, A3, and D2, 1912
9.1 The Native Land Act 1909 83 9.2 Offer of Sale to Crown 84 9.3 Cancellation of Partitions of Matahina AID, A3, and B 85 9.4 Meeting of Owners to Consider the Crown's Offer, 1912 86 9.5 Summary 87
10. The Sale of Matahina A2, A3, and Part A1D to Private Interests
10.1 Meetings of Owners, July 1914 88 10.2 Partition of Matahina A3, November 1914 91 10.3 Delay in the Purchase Payments for Matahina A2, A3, and part AID 91 10.4 Inquiry into the Purchase of the Matahina Blocks 93 10.5 Transfer of Part Matahina AID to William Elwarth, December 1923 97 10.6 Lease of 31 acres of Matahina A ID to Elwarth, 1926 98 10.7 Transfer of Matahina A2 to Arthur Galbraith, December 1923 99 10.8 Purchase of Matahina A3B by George Syme Jnr, and George Syme and Co Ltd, 1925 99 10.9 Summary 102
11. Sale of 22,000 acres of Matahina A1D to Kotahi Lands Limited, 1927
11.1 Introduction 104 11.2 Sale to Kotahi Lands Limited 104
12. Transactions Affecting the Remaining Ngati Awa Portions of Matahina A1D, 1936-1967
12.1 Lease of Part Matahina AID to WC Davies, 1936 106 12.2 Renewal of Lease to HF Black, 1957 106 12.3 Sale of Timber Cutting Rights for Part Matahina AID to Kauri Timber Company Limited, 1961 107
3 12.4 Partition of Remaining Ngati Awa Holdings in Matahina A lD, 1966 111 12.5 Inclusion of Matahina AID2 and D2 in the Tarawera Forest Project, and the Subsequent Sale ofTarawera 1 to Tasman Forests Limited, 1968 111 12.6 Summary 111
13. Sale of Matahina A3A to Whakatane Board Mills, 1969, and Sale of Timber Cutting Rights to Uepango Sawmilling Company, 1949
13.1 Early Attempts to Purchase Land and Timber Cutting Rights 113 13.2 Sale of Timber Cutting Rights to the Uepango Sawmilling Company Limited, 1949 113 13.3 Sale of Matahina A3A to Whakatane Board Mills, 1969 116 13.4 Remaining Ngati Awa Land 118 13.5 Summary 118
14. Te Whaiti Paora's Campaign to Adjust the Southern Boundary of Matahina B
14.1 Introduction 120 14.2 Early Correspondence Relating to Te Whaiti Paora's Complaint 120 14.3 Te Whaiti Paora's Objection Before the Court 121 14.4 Te Whaiti Paora's Petitions, 1918 and 1920 123 14.5 Summary 124
15. Sale of 587 acres of Matahina B2 to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, 1931, and Partition of Remaining 400 acres, 1932
15.1 Sale to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, 1931 125 15.2 Partition of Remaining Ngati Hamua Portion of Matahina B2, 1932 128 15.3 Summary 128
16. Transactions Affecting Matahina B2A, B2B, and B2C
16.1 Lease of Matahina B2A to William Clement Davies, 1936 129 16.2 Lease of Matahina B2C to William Clement Davies, 1936 129 16.3 Lease of Matahina B2B to William Clement Davies, 1938 132 16.4 Renewal of Lease of Matahina B2C to Hubert Francis Back, 1957 132 16.5 Sale of Matahina B2A to Whakatane Board Mills Limited, 1966 133 16.6 Sale of Matahina B2B to Whakatane Board Mills Limited, 1967 134 16.7 Remaining Ngati Hamua Land 134 16.8 Summary 134
17. Matahina C South and Matahina CIB
17.1 Inclusion of Matahina C South and Matahina C 1B into the Ruatoki Development Scheme, 1932 135 17.2 Subsequent History of Matahina C South and Matahina C 1B 136 17.3 Summary 137
18. Present Ownership of the Matahina Block 138
Conclusion 139
Bibliography 144
4 Maps
Map 1: Location of the Matahina Block 10
Map 2: Sketch of Locations within the Matahina Block 12
Map 3: Portions of the Matahina Block Claimed by Counter-Claimants, 1881 24
Map 4: Portions of the Matahina Block Claimed by Counter-Claimants, 1884 53
Map 5: Subdivisions of the Matahina Block (resulting from 1884 rehearing) 63
Map 6: Partitions of Matahina Al 69
Map 7: Land Taken by Crown for Survey Costs, 1907 76
Map 8: Matahina A3A and Matahina A3B 90
Map 9: Transactions Affecting Matahina AID 105
Map 10: Matahina B2 (portion sold in 1931 and partitions of 1932) 126
Map 11: Present Ownership of the Matahina Block 138
Tables
Table 1: Subdivisions of Matahina Block Following the Rehearing of the 62 Title Investigation
Table 2: Advances to Ngati Awa for Matahina Block, 1873-1881 65
Table 3: Survey Costs Charged Against Subdivisions of the Matahina 68 Block, 1891
Table 4: Crown's Application Details for Recovery of Survey Costs from 75 Matahina Blocks
Table 5: Mitchell's Valuations of Matahina Blocks, 1910 84
Table 6 Prices Offered by Crown for Matahina Blocks, 1912 86
Table 7 Summary of Petitions, Sales, Leases, and Major Takings of 140 Matahina Subdivisions
Table 8 Proportion of Owners Present or Represented at Meetings where 141 Owners Resolved to Sell Land, and Proportion of Shares Held by Owners in Favour of Resolution
5 Abbreviations
Appendices to the Journals ofthe House of Representatives AJHR Certificate of Title CT Block Order file BOF Land Information New Zealand LINZ Maori Land Court Plan number ML National Archives NA Waiariki District Maori Land Board WDMLB Waiariki District Maori Land Court WDMLC Waiariki District Native Land Court WDNLC Waitangi Tribunal claim number Wai
Author
My name is Philip Cleaver. I graduated from Victoria University in 1996 with a Masters of Arts, majoring in history. I have been employed by the Tribunal as a commissioned researcher since February 1999.
6 Introduction
There are four claims which concern the Matahlna block:
(1) Wai 36/386: Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board (2) Wai 46: Ngati Awa Trust Board (3) Wai 212: Te Runanganui 0 te Ika Whenua (4) Wai 726: Ngati Haka - Patuheuheu claimants
Several reports have already been written on different aspects of the history of the Matahina block, and this evidence has been heard by the Tribunal for the Wai 46 enquiry. Tony Walzl and Jeremy Gardiner explore the history of the block up until the 1920s, focusing primarily on the area of the block which was awarded to Ngati Awa. 1 Wiremu Doherty examines the traditional history of Matahina C and C 1, the portion of the block which was awarded to Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka.2 TR Nikora, Marian Porima, Kathy Ertel, and H Martin examine the history of Matahina C and Cl from the time of the first title investigation of the Matahina block in 1881.3 They focus largely on the taking of land for survey charges in 1907. Their conclusions relating to the 1907 taking are contested in a report prepared by John Battersby.4 John Third and L Harvey examine the Tarawera Forest Project.5 Two Maori owned subdivisions of the Matahina block, AID2 and D2, were among the blocks which were amalgamated to form Tarawera 1 in 1966. David Alexander explores the history of the Matahina Power Project and the associated taking of Maori land, which included an area of the Matahina block. 6
The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report does not cover land such as the Matahina block, which was located outside of the confiscation boundary. 7 This report has been commissioned for the casebook of the Urewera District Inquiry. It brings together and examines all of the existing research on the Matahina block, and explores several important aspects of the block's history which are not addressed in the earlier reports. Specifically, the writer has been commissioned to provide:
1 Tony Walzl, 'Ngati Awa Land, 1870-1970', 1996, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc MI8); Jeremy Gardiner, 'The Matahina Block and the Kaingaroa Forest', September 1995, (Wai 46 record cf. documents, doc L 11) 2 Wiremu Doherty, 'Traditional History Relating to Matahina C & Cl', 1995, (Wai 46 record cf. documents, doc D5) 3 TR Nikora, 'Matahina C & C No.1 Blocks', May 1995 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc F2); Marian Porima, 'Matahina C & Cl and Patuheuheu & Ngati Haka', 1994 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc D4); Kathy L Ertel, 'Opening Submission of counsel for Te Runanganui 0 Te Ika Whenua Incorporated Society', February 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, document D9); H Martin, 'Report on Matahina F', August 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc C3) 4 Battersby, John, 'Matahina C and Cl: Issues Related to the Survey of the Blocks', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H9) 5 Third, John, 'Tarawera Forests', September 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc C4); L Harvey, 'Tarawera Forest Project', August 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc B25) 6 Alexander, David, 'Matahina Power Project Including Te Mahoe Village & Rangitaiki 60c Core Material Quarry', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5) 7 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999
7 ------I
a) A brief explanation of the reasons for this Tribunal commission, and the aim of the research project. Any comments about methodological approach, sources, consultation undertaken, and what further research, if any, may be required. b) An overview of evidence concerning the customary Maori use and occupation ofMatahina. c) An outline of the history of the Matahina block, 1876-1884, focussing on the initial survey of the block, subsequent title investigation, and rehearing. Any issues relating to early Crown efforts to lease or purchase the block should also be examined. d) A commentary on the issue of who requested and authorised the 1885 subdivision survey of the Matahina block. e) A history of the subdivisions of the Matahina block, and a history of the subsequent alienations of these subdivisions from 1885 to the present. f) An analysis surrounding the circumstances of the award of Matahina A6 block to the Crown, in recognition of advances paid and surveys undertaken prior to title investigaition. g) A brief canvassing of the issues surrounding the 1907 taking of Matahina land for survey liens. h) An analysis of a 1921 commission of inquiry into events concerning the Matahina block. i) An examination of a petition from Te Whaiti Paora concerning the boundaries of the Matahina B block, and whether those boundaries were altered as a consequence of that petition. j) An outline of twentieth century alienations of Matahina land, with a focus on acquisition of land for forestry purposes. k) An examination of how and why the Matahina C and Cl blocks were brought into the Ruatoki Development Scheme. 1) A commentary on the role and actions of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board and the Maori Trustee in the later alienations on Matahina land, particularly in relation to meetings cf assembled owners convened to pass resolutions for sale ofland.
8 1. Traditional Use and Occupation of the Matahina Block
1.1 Introduction
While speaking for the Ngati Awa claimants during the first title investigation of the Matahina block in September 1881, Hamiora Tumutara asserted that the name Matahina had been given to the block because his ancestor Tamaka had not passed its boundaries until his hair had become grey.! Hamiora stated that the name Matahina applied to all of the land within the block.2 However, two of the counter-claimants, Wi Patene for Patuheuheu, and Te Morihi Paurini for Ngati Hinewai, alleged that the name Matahina properly applied only to the forest within the block.3
Surveys of the Matahina block found it to have an area of just under 80,000 acres. The plan of the 1885 survey shows that a sizeable portion of the block was forested. 4 The area of this forest was estimated to be approximately 13,000 acres. As a consequence of the Tarawera eruption, the entire block was covered in a layer of sand and scoria. A valuation carried out in 1910 described the block to be undulating, with the exception of an area of broken county around the base of Pl.).tauaki, and an area of fertile flats alongside a section of the Rangitaiki River. S Apart from these river flats and the forested area, the Matahina block was always described to be infertile, scrub covered land.
A description of the traditional use and occupation of the Matahina block is difficult because of the nature of the available sources. There is very little secondary material that deals with the subject. Elsdon Best's Tuhoe: The Children ofthe Mist contains some useful information on the Matahina block and those who occupied it.6 A brief report by Wiremu Doherty deals specifically with the traditional history of Matahina C and C 1, the area of which constitutes a very small portion of the original block. 7 David Young touches on the pre-European history of the block in his booklet on the MatahinaDam, Matahina: Power in the Land.8 , The only written primary source which is relevant to the traditional history and occupation of the Matahina block is the Native Land Court minute book record of the 1881 title investigation and the 1884 rehearing. This is a valuable, but problematic, source of information. The title investigation and rehearing saw a large volume of evidence presented to the Court, much of which was conflicting. In his judgement of the 1881 title
! Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 15 September 1881, p 123 (wrongly numbered p 122) Ibid, P 124 3 Ibid, 7 September 1881, p 67; ibid, 13 September 1881, p 104 4 ML 4705, LINZ, Hamilton Mitchell, to Under Secretary, Lands Department, 26 November 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 6 Elsdon Best, Tuhoe: The Children o/the Mist, Wellington, AH and AW Reed, 1972, vol 1 7 Wiremu Doherty, 'Traditional History Relating to Matahina C & Cl', 1995, (Wai 46 record eX documents, doc D5) 8 David Young, Matahina: Power in the Land, Wellington, Steele Roberts, 1998
9 _ ~_--__ -~-~ ------~J __ , ______
Map 1 Location of the Matahina Block
N
confiscation
o 5 10 15
kilometres
10 investigation, Judge Brookfield correctly described 'the greater part' of the evidence to be 'of the most contradictory nature - one set of claimants asserting one thing - whilst the others assert directly the contrary,.9
In addition to its contradictory nature, a further problem with the evidence brought before the Court is that there is uncertainty as to whether Tuhoe were appropriately represented at the initial title investigation and rehearing. The Matahina block was situated within a corridor of land which formed the boundary between Tuhoe and Ngati Awa. The Native Land Court was shunned by Te Whitu Tekau, the Tuhoe council of chiefs established in June 187.2.to protect the interests and autonomy of Tuhoe. It was the policy of Te Whitu Tekau that hapu within the Tuhoe boundary were not to take claims to the Court.10 In the west the boundary was described to run from 'Te Mapara, thence following the Rangitaiki River to Otipa, Whakangutu-toroa, Tuku-toromiro, Te Hokowhitu, Te Whakamatau, Okahu, Oniwarima [Aniwaniwa], Te Houhi'.l1 It is unclear whether the Matahina block lay within the Tuhoe boundary as defmed by Te Whitu Tekau. The locations of the places named between Otipa and Te Houhi do not appear to be shown on any existing maps.
In addition to the policy of Te Whitu Tekau, individuals of Tuhoe who wished to participate in the activities of the Native Land Court were further inhibited by the inconvenience and expense which attendance at lengthy Court sittings always involved. Both the initial title investigation and the rehearing were held at Whakatane, a considerable distance from the Tuhoe district. One hapu of Tuhoe, Patuheuheu, were represented at the initial title investigation of the Matahina block and the subsequent rehearing. Following the rehearing, Patuheuheu were awarded a small portion of the block. Patuheuheu, who were positioned on the periphery of the Tuhoe district, are considered to have operated more independently than most Tuhoe hapu. 12
During the first investigation of title, a claim was made on behalf of another Tuhoe hapu, Te Urewera, by Te Makarini Te Warn, a prominent member of Te Whitu Tekau. This claim was withdrawn by Makarini, apparently because he had established that the hapu had no interest within the block, although it is possible that he withdrew it because it conflicted with his involvement with Te Whitu Tekau. \3 Following the withdrawal of the Te Urewera claim, Makarini presented evidence in relation to the claim of Ngati Hamua. He stated that Kaitangata, in the portion claimed by Ngati Hamua, belonged to Ngati Rakei hapu of Tuhoe. Makarini asserted that Ngati Rakei lived at Kaitangata interspersed among Ngati Awa. 14 Best states that the ancestral home of Ngati Rakei was in the Ruatahuna district. He details that, after a series of migrations, Ngati Rakei came to live at Tauheke pa
9 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 11 October 1881, p 269 10 Anita Miles, Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (working paper: ftrst release), March 1999, p 194 11 Te Whenuanui, Paerau, and all the tribe to the Government, 9 June 1872, AJHR, 1872, F-3A, P 29, cited in Miles, p 195 12 Miles, pp 234-235 \3 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 11 October 1881, P 267 14 Ibid, 12 September 1881, pp 99-100
11 Map 2 Otipa • Hauraki. Sketch of Locations within Waipatoto the Matahina Block
Kaitangatae N Waihinahina (approx) 1 MAT AHINA BUSH
• Te Monehu
Motukura.
Aruhetawhiri Te Raepohatu. • (approx) •
o 2 4 6 8 10
kilometres
12 on the east bank of the Rangitaiki River, and at Hauraki within the Matahina block.ls Best does not state when Ngati Rakei's occupation of these places began. He claims that 'Ngati Rakei have practically lost their own identity' to Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu, who he describes to be 'descendants of the Rakei family'. During the rehearing, Makarini unsuccessfully claimed a small area of land between Tokotokorau and the Waikowhewhe Stream on behalf of Ngati Rakei. 16 It is unclear to what extent Makarini legitimately represented Te Urewera hapu during the initial title investigation, and Ngati Rakei during the rehearing.
It is the opinion of Tama Nikora, claim manager for the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, that Tuhoe's interest in the Matahina block, both in 1840 and at the time of the title investigation, was significantly greater than the small portion of the block which was awarded to Patuheuheu.17 Nikora contends that the boundary between Tuhoe and Ngati Awa passed through the Matahina block atOhui. He claims that this was dermed in the peace agreement between Tuhoe and Ngati Awa, which Best states was reached in about 1834. Best's account of the establishment of the peace agreement is based largely on information provided by Himiona Tikitu ofNgati Awa. 18 Best details that Ngati Awa took the first steps towards ending the long period of 'harassing guerilla warfare' which had afflicted Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. A party of Ngati Awa travelled to Ruatahuna with their proposal of peace, and were received by the Tuhoe chiefs Koura, Te Ikapoto, and Tamarehe. 19 The matter of concluding the drawn-out fighting was discussed and agreed upon, and the Tuhoe chiefs were invited to visit an assembly of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko at Te Kupenga pa located at Te Teko. In response to this invitation, Koura and Te Ikapoto travelled to Te Kupenga, where they and the other men of the Tuhoe party were met by the widows of Ngati Awa who had been killed in fighting with Tuhoe.20 Best relates that when the peace was discussed, the Ngati Awa chief Hatua said to Koura and Te Ikapoto:
Observe well the clump of bush which stands at O-hui. In the days gone by that bush has been reduced by repeated fIres; in the days that lie before no frre shall be kindled there, or beyond it, or on this side. It shall remain as a tatau pounamu, as a sanctuary for women and children?1
It does not seem obvious from this that the peace agreement between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe dermed Ohui as a boundary between the two iwi, although clearly Ohui was located in an area of land upon which they had fought. It could be argued that Hatua mentioned Ohui only to establish the bush there as a symbol of peaceful conduct between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. He did not directly describe Ohui as a boundary, nor is this suggested by Best.
Hirini Mead, claim manager for Ngati Awa, asserts that the peace agreement did not mark Ohui as the boundary between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. Rather, Mead claims, Ohui was seen
IS Best, pp 26-27 16 Ibid, p 27 17 Tama Nikora, interview, 6 October 1999 18 Best, p 387 19 Ibid, P 388 20 Ibid 21 Ibid, p 389
13 to mark a corridor for safe passage through the district,22 He argues that as Ngati Awa took the initiative to establish peace, they chose to locate the tatau pounamu within the Ngati Awa rohe. Mead considers that Ngati Awa's dominance within the Matahina block was reflected in the findings of the Native Land Court following both the first investigation of title in 1881, and the rehearing in 1884. Mead claims that the correct tribal boundaries were those established by the Court in 1884. In judgement, the Court awarded the bulk of the block to Ngati Awa.
1.2 Summary of the Available Evidence
A detailed summary of the evidence presented to the Court during the first title investigation and rehearing is given later in this report. A brief overview of that and the other available evidence is provided here in order to sketch something of the traditional use and occupation of the block.
In both the initial title investigation and the rehearing, Ngati Awa claimed the whole of the Matahina block. Penetito Hawea, who on both occasions presented Ngati Awa's claim, told the Court that the tribe had occupied the block for many generations without interruption. The witnesses called by Penetito asserted that Ngati Awa had numerous residences and cultivations within the Matahina block. They acknowledged that Ngati Hamua hapu ofNgati Whare had once lived at Otipa, in the north of the block, but claimed that their occupation had ended when Ngati Awa fought and defeated them.
Best distinguishes between the Ngati Hamua who had lived at Otipa, and the Hamua section of Tuhoe. He describes the former group to be closely connected to Ngati Awa, but identifies that 'they appear to have had a distinct origin, or rather, are descendants of common, but remote, ancestors, by different lines. ,23 Best details that Ngati Hamua came to the Matahina district from Ohiwa, and acquired land extending from Otipa to Tokotokorau.24 Best claims that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe, another hapu of Ngati Whare, who lived further down the Rangitaiki River at .Tokitareke, were expelled. by Ngati Awa not later than 1817, 'in the days of the rakauMaori, or native weapons' .25 Onehou Phillis, Warahoe historian and daughter of Ngati Awa leader ErueraManuera, is recorded by Young as stating that this occurred 'probably late in the eighteenth century. ,26 Drawing on oral sources, Young explains that:
Tribal animosities erupted when a kuia was insulted at a wedding near Te Teko. The insult rapidly escalated into a complex series ofutu-style raids with Ngati Awa finally deciding that enough was enough. To put an end to it they resolved to drive the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua out of the district.27
Ngati Awa witnesses told the Court that those who escaped Ngati Awa's attack fled to Taupo, Waikato, and Ruatahuna. Best states that, following the defeat of Warahoe and
22 Hirini Mead, interview, 9 November 1999 23 Best, p 171 24 Ibid 25 Ibid, P 179, P 183 26 Ibid, P 52 27 Young, P 51
14 Ngati Hamua, Ngati Awa proceeded to take possession of the lands that had been possessed by Ngati Hamua between Otipa to Tokotokorau.28 The Court heard from Penetito Hawea's witnesses that the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua 'refugees' eventually returned to the area at the invitation of the Ngati Awa chief Rangitukehu, under whose authority they proceeded to live. Best provides an identical account of these events, stating that those Warahoe and Ngati Hamua who returned to the Te Teko district were 'invited to do so by Te Rangi-tukehu'.29 He states that this happened around 1847, the year when a mission was established at Te Whaiti.
The principal counter-claimants in the title investigation and rehearing were Ngati Hamua, Ngati Rangitihi, and Patuheuheu. Elsdon Best describes Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka to be one and the same people.30 Each of the counter-claimants argued that they had occupied portions of the Matahina block without disturbance from the time of their ancestors. The portions claimed by Ngati Hamua, Patuheuheu, and Ngati Rangitihi are shown in Maps 2 and 3. The counter-claimants attempted to demonstrate a close knowledge of the land, giving details of plantations, residences, place-names, and stories relating to the occupation of their ancestors. The assertions of the counter-claimants were strongly contested by the witnesses called by Penetito Hawea, who argued that Ngati Hamua had returned to live under Rangitukehu's authority, and that Ngati Rangitihi and Patuheuheu had always lived outside of the block. During cross-examination by Niheta Kaipara of Ngati Rangitihi, one of Penetito' s witnesses, Hone Matenga, accused the counter-claimants of conspiring against Ngati Awa. Responding to one of Niheta's questions, Matenga stated that 'you have combined to rob us of our land. ,31
Doherty argues that there is clear evidence that Patuheuheu 'had long been established' on Matahina C and C 1, the 2000 acres of land which the hapu was awarded following the 1884 rehearing.32 Doherty emphases that this land was essentially a food gathering area, rather than an area of permanent occupation. He identifies that Te Houhi, across the Rangitaiki River from Matahina C and C 1, was one of the principal homesteads of Patuheuheu, Ngati Haka, Ngati Whare, and Ngati Manawa.33 Doherty records an interview with kaumatua Hieke Tupe, who stated that there was a homestead within the block at Te Raepohatu, where some members of the hapu lived until the turn of the twentieth century.34 Tupe detailed that the block was used for bird and pig hunting.35 He noted that traditional pigeon hunting snares were used at Maihihi, Hawaina, and Te Waimatai, 'all places within the region of Matahina C and C 1'. Doherty claims that there are stories about the land 'which show thatthe block in question was and has been well traversed by tribal tipuna. ,36 He states that some of these stories 'are always associated with Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu, [which] are widely known through the rohe and neighbouring
28 Best, p 179 29 Ibid, P 185 30 Best, p 27 31 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 16 September 1881, p 142 32 Doherty, p 4 33 Ibid, P 6 34 Ibid, P 13 35 Ibid, pp 11-12 36 Ibid, P 4
15 tribes. ,37 He relates a story concerning the riwai, or sacred potatoes, which are located on the opposite side of the Rangitaiki River from Matahina C and CI.38
37 Ibid, pp 4-5 38 Ibid, pp 5-6
16 2. Crown Purchasing Activities, 1876-1881
2.1 Introduction
In the 1870s, the Crown began purchasing Maori land in the central and eastern North Island, areas where there had previously been no purchasing activity. It has been identified that economic development and military security were the objectives behind this policy:
Pressure on northern tribes to sell large blocks of land built up rapidly after Vogel launched his bold ten year programme of government borrowing for assisted immigration and public works in 1870. His purpose was two-fold: to develop the national economy, and to gain control over remaining Maori districts in the North Island by opening up communications, introducing settlers and employing Maori on public works. I
The Native Land Court was integral to the execution of the government's land purchasing policy. The Court had been established under the Native Land Act 1862. It facilitated the purchase of Maori land by extinguishing Maori customary title, and replacing it with a title of individual owners. In 1873, a Land Purchase Department was established under the authority of the Native Minister, Donald McLean. Land purchase officers were appointed to acquire the land which was required for the fulfilment ofthe government's policy. In his report on Ngati Awa land, Tony Walzl records the instructions given in April 1875 by the Native Secretary to a newly appointed land purchase officer on the East Coast, Thomas Porter:
Your instructions are as follows: When natives intimate their desire to dispose of a block, you will personally inspect it, and use your best endeavour to obtain all requisite information as to the rights over it of the parties offering it. You will then report to the Under Secretary, Native Office, Land Purchase Branch, giving your view as to the quality of the soil, the nature of the block, and the particular purpose for which it is adapted whether for special settlement, for agricultural or pastoral pursuits, and any other information respecting it which may assist the Government in its decision. You will also report the price asked whether for purchase or lease, and forward your own estimate of what you think should be a fair price.2
Porter was also instructed that reserves of a suitable area were to be established prior to the completion of a purchase.
2.2 The Operations of Land Purchase Officers Henry Mitchell and Charles Davis
The land purchase officers involved with negotiations concerning the Matahina block were Henry Mitchell and Charles Davis. Mitchell was employed as a land purchase officer in the Taupo - Bay of Plenty region between 1873 and 1880. Davis worked in the district as a land purchase officer between 1873 and 1878. Before being employed as government land purchase officers, Mitchell and Davis had worked in the Taupo - Bay of Plenty region as
I Waitangi Tribunal, Te Roroa Report, Wellington, Brooker and Friend Limited, 1993, p 55 2 Clarke to Porter, 17 April 1875, MA-MLP 1 18751147, NA Wellington, cited in Tony Walzl, 'Ngati Awa Land, 1870-1970', September 1996, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc MI8), p 9
17 agents for private interests.3 While the instructions that had been given to Thomas Porter emphasised that a cautious and circumspect approach should be followed, it is clear that the manner of operation practised by Mitchell and Davis deviated significantly from this. In mid-1876, land purchase operations in the Taupo-Bay of Plenty district came to a halt when Mitchell and Davis were suspended. Walzl explains that their activities 'had aggravated several groups of Arawa Maori to the point that [Native Secretary] Clarke feared a "collision" would soon arise.'4 Clarke reported that, in connection with several blocks of land, Mitchell and Davis had been accused of recognising the claims of parties who allegedly had no claims at all. Davis was dismissed from his position in 1878 for the misappropriation of government monies. In 1880, Mitchell was sacked when the Under Secretary of the Land Purchase Department, Richard Gill, recommended changes which he considered would 'be found beneficial to the Department.'s
2.3 Strategies for the Acquisition of Land: Leasing and the Use of Advances
Two strategies which were employed by land purchase officers in order to acquire Maori land in the 1870s and 1880s were the leasing of land as a preliminary to purchase, and the advancement of cash for leased land and land which was under negotiation for purchase. Mitchell and Davis attempted to acquire the Matahina block using both of these strategies. Walzl asserts that 'leasing arrangements played a key role in the Crown's purchasing policy in the Bay of Plenty and elsewhere. '6 Mitchell and Davis adopted the strategy of leasing land in 1873, when they encountered the reluctance of Maori around Taupo to part with their land, or have it pass through the Native Land Court. In order to lease land, it was necessary for the title to have been investigated by the Court. It was this aspect of leasing, along with the political and commercial ties which were established during the arrangement of the lease, which explains why it was considered to be a useful preliminary to the eventual purchase of land. Walzl identifies that there were often problems associated with the leasing ofland:
With pressure on a land purchase officer to conclude a lease quickly, surveys were not completed and all the owners were not ascertained. The leasing arrangements were. not considered completed until the land went through the Court and the owners were identified. Because ofthis situation rental was not supposed to be paid.. Often, however, there was a long period between the securing of a leasing arrangement and the title investigation. In the meantime, pressures mounted for rental payments to be made.?
The use of advances is described by Walzl as having been 'something of an unofficial policy', one which was used by land purchase officers without the full support of head office officials or politicians. 8 However, the advancement of cash was commonly used by land purchase officials, and the Native Lands Act 1873 provided that the Court take into account 'advances of money made to the Native owners by way of earnest money to bind
3 Kathryn Rose, 'The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchasing in Taupo and the Central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s', July 1997, p 18 4 Walzl, p 11 S Gill to Native Minister, 7 June 1880, MA-MLP 1 1880/383, found in MA-MLP 1 1885/17, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 12 6 Walzl, p 13 ? Ibid, P 14 8 Ibid
18 ------1
the agreement for such sale.'9 In April 1875, McLean instructed land purchase officers to conduct their business openly, and 'avoid making payments to individuals who stealthily offer to part with their interests.' 10 McLean described such practises as 'decidedly objectionable as leading in some instances to natives receiving money without due enquiry' . II
The advancement of cash was a strategy that was frequently employed by Mitchell. In November 1879, Gill commented on the 'frequent payments' made by Mitchell on blocks ofland which had not passed through the Court. Gill considered this an unwise practise:
I am aware that in certain cases advances as a preliminary payment are necessary but that such payments should continue month after month I can see no necessity for, in fact in my beliefthe practice rather delays than quickens the completion of the purchase. 12
Gill recommended that land purchase officers cease advancing cash on land which had not passed through the Native Land Court.
2.4 Leasing and Negotiations for the Purchase of the Matahina Block
In her report on Crown purchasing in Taupo and the central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s, Kathryn Rose details that Mitchell and Davis began negotiations in the Rangitaiki district during September 1873. 13 The agents met with Ngati Haka and requested that they attend a meeting at Kokohinau, where the Ngati Awa chief Rangitukehu was expected to be present. 14 Mitchell and Davis had negotiated with Rangitukehu to lease the Pokohu block, but upon arriving at Kokohinau, learnt that Rangitukehu had offered to lease a portion of the block to a Lieutenant Bluett. Upon the discovery of this, Mitchell and Davis cancelled the proposed meeting, refusing to consider anything other than their initial agreement. IS Walzl asserts that, during the 1870s, the 'Pokohu block' consisted of the land which, from 1881, was known as the Matahina block. 16 From 1881, the name Pokohu was given to the block located immediately to the west of the Matahina block.
Rose states that, on 1 December 1873, Mitchell and Davis made an advance of £50 to Wi Patene for the 'Pokohu block'. JC Young was asked to accompany Wi Patene to Te Putere, where he collected other Ngati Haka'signatures. It is asserted by Rose that, owing to Rangitukehu's dealings with Bluett, Mitchell and Davis 'had decided to ignore his claim and deal with other hapu for portions of the block that they claimed.' 17
On 20 December 1873, Bluett relinquished his lease of a portion of the 'Pokohu block' .18 He did this because he believed that it was illegal to enter into private arrangements with
9 Section 59, Native Lands Act 1873 10 McLean, Circular to Land Purchase Officers, 17 April 1874, MA-MLP I 18751121, cited in Walzl, p 14 II Ibid 12 Gill to Native Minister, 11 November 1879, MA-MLP 1 79/525, found in MA MLP 1 18731159, cited in Walzl, p 15 13 Rose, p 60 14 Ibid. Rose appears to have mis-spelt Ngati Haka, writing instead of a Ngati Hoko. 15 Ibid 16 Walzl, p 19 17 Rose, p 60 18 Ibid, P 61
19 Maori for land owing to the suspension of the Native Lands Act in the region. Rose states that following the withdrawal of Bluett's leasing arrangement, Ngati Awa had 'little choice but to accept' the terms of the lease offered by Mitchell and Davis. 19
On 28 and 29 April 1874, Mitchell and Davis met with Ngati Uruhina to discuss their interest in the 'Pokohu block'. Ngati Uruhina offered to either sell their interest or enter into the leasing arrangement. They were paid a deposit of £50 for the lease of the 'Pokohu block', and in return added their signatures to the deed. 20 Best does not provide details of a hapu named Ngati Uruhina. However, in the Tuhoe genealogies he provides, Best identifies an individual named Uruhina to be a descendant ofParemokai.21
In September 1874, Mitchell and Davis met with Ngati Awa to discuss the 'Pokohu block.' It was agreed that a conference should be.held involving all of the claimants to the Rangitaiki lands. 22 It is unclear whether this meeting was held.
In December 1876, Mitchell reported that he had had meetings with Ngati Rangitihi concerning land that included an area of the 'Pokohu block'.23 According to Mitchell, Ngati Rangitihi wished to have the land surveyed, and then enter into a leasing arrangement with the government. Rangitukehu opposed this, disputing Ngati Rangitihi's claim over the Matahina land. In July, Rangitukehu wrote to McLean requesting that a government officer be sent to enquire into problems which were arising from the payments made by Mitchell and Davis. 24 Instead of this, Mitchell and Davis presided over a series of hui in May 1876. One of these hui, which was held over two days at Te Umuhika, was attended by approximately 300 people of different tribal affiliations. 25 The ownership of the 'Pokohu block' was discussed at this hui. Mitchell and Davis appointed a jury of 10 chiefs and assessors to consider the evidence that was presented. It was judged by this jury that the money paid by Mitchell and Davis had in fact been given to parties who had a legitimate claim to the land. 26 In returns for the year 1876, the 'Pokohu block' was recorded as being under lease for £300 per annum.27 Walzl asserts that the lease was never properly finalised, noting that in 1881 it was considered by Gill to be 'an incomplete lease open since 1873.'28
On 25 April 1878, it was proclaimed that the government had entered negotiations for the purchase of the 'Pokohu block' .29 Although rents were only payable once the land had passed through the Native Land Court, Mitchell continued to make payments against the 'Pokohu lease' throughout 1879.30 On one of the vouchers for these payments, Mitchell
19 Ibid 20 Ibid, P 64 21 Best,p212 22 Rose, pp 137-138 23 Ibid, P 153 24 Ibid 25 Ibid, P 156 26 Ibid 27 Tom Bennion and Anita Miles, 'Ngati Awa and Other Claims', September 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc Ll), p 232 28 Gill, undated minute, MA-MLP 1 18811203, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 19 29 Walzl, p 19 30 Ibid, pp 19-20
20 detailed that Rangitukehu wished to sell the land to the Government, and that a survey of 31 the block had been carried OUt. Gill corresponded with the Native Minister on 1 October 1879, informing him of the developments towards the purchase of the Pokohu block. 32 Gill stated that he expected the title of the land would be investigated in the Court in March 1880.
A deed of purchase was signed by several Ngati Awa on 16 October 1879, and a deposit of £150 was paid. The following boundaries were recorded on the deed:
All that piece or block of land situated in the parish of Matata in the provincial district of Auckland and colony of New Zealand called or known as Matahina block bounded on the north by the Opotiki confiscated block on the east by the Rangitaiki River on the south by Ngatamawahine stream and on the west by survey lines recently cut by the surveyor Marten and containing an area of about eighty six thousand acres. 33
The deed recorded that a reserve was to be set aside in the forest, 'to include the Kainga and sufficient area for the tribe's cultivations.' The name of the kainga was not given. Eight individuals signed the deed: Rangitukehu, Hone Matenga, Hoani Tuhimata, Hamiora Tumutara Pio, Paora Patu, Te Meihana, Rehutai, and Hoani Hape.
The title investigation of the 'Pokohu block' was not heard in March 1880 as had been expected. The Court had planned to sit later in the year at Whakatane, but was adjourned owing to a scarcity of food for those Maori who were to attend the sitting. A proposed sitting of the Court in February 1881 also failed to eventuate.34
On 25 April 1881, Resident Magistrate Brabant, who had replaced Mitchell as land purchase officer, reported to Gill on several blocks of land within his area of responsibility which were under negotiation by the Crown. Brabant noted that the 'Pokohu block' had been surveyed, and claimed that Rangitukehu wished to sell an area of 20,000 acres 'in payment of advances survey costs etc'. 3S He stated that one third of the block was covered in forest, while the remaining area was covered in fern and scrub. Brabant considered some of the land to be very good and well adapted for pastoral purposes.36 Gill noted in the margin of Brabant's report that £782 had been spent on the incomplete lease of the 'Pokohu block'. Gill recommended that this money be returned or land of an equivalent value be taken in lieu. He advised that, following this, the lease be cancelled.·
On 3 August 1881, land purchase officer Gilbert Mair informed Brabant that the Native Land Court would sit at Whakatane on 1 September. He stated that:
most of the natives interested in the various b locks will be present at the Court. It would be a good opportunity for completing many of the long outstanding transactions .... In the case of Pokohu the natives are willing to make over to Govt a large portion of the
31 Mitchell on voucher, MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 20 32 Gill to Native Minister, 1 October 1879, MA-MLP 1 1879/300, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 20 33 Deed of sale of Matahina block, in Jeremy Gardiner, 'The Matahina Block and the Kaingaroa Forest', November 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc LIl), attachment 3 34 Walzl, p 22 3S Brabant to Gill, 25 April 1881, MA-MLP I 18811203, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 22 36 Ibid
21 block adjoining Kaingaroa No 1 in payment of advances and survey charges provided a further payment is made them. 37
Gill telegraphed Brabant on 22 August, informing him of the manner III which the Crown's interest in the Pokohu block was to be secured:
Please instruct Capt Mair to take from the owners (after Court has issued orders) of Pokohu ... land equivalent in value for the advances made and cost of survey. If it is necessary to take a larger area to save expensive survey work he can use his own discretion but in no case must this extra area exceed five thousand acres in each block .... Should it afterwards be decided to purchase the remainder of the land this can be done under new negotiation.38
2.5 Summary
In 1873, land purchase officers Henry Mitchell and Charles Davis began negotiating for the purchase of land in the Rangitaiki district. At this time, the land that was later to be defined as the Matahina block was known as the 'Pokohu block'. Mitchell and Davis made payments for the lease of the 'Pokohu block' to Ngati Awa, Ngati Haka, and a hapu called Ngati Uruhina. Leasing was considered to be a useful preliminary to the eventual purchase ofland. In April 1878, it was proclaimed that the government had entered into negotiations for the purchase of the 'Pokohu block'. In October 1879, Rangitukehu and seven other leading men of N gati Awa signed a deed of transfer in favour of the Crown. A survey of the Matahina block was carried out, and plans were made for the block's title to be investigated by the Native land Court. Officials of the Land Purchase Department intended to recover in land the cost of the block's survey, and the money which had been paid under the terms of the lease and advanced for the purchase of the block.
37 Mair to Brabant, 3 August 1881, MA-MLP 1 18811312, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, pp 23-24 38 GIll to Brabant, 22 August 1881, MA-MLP 1 18811335, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, pp 24
22 3. Title Investigation. of the Matahina Block 6 September 1881 - 21 September 1881
3.1 The Claimants and Counter-Claimants
The Native Land Court investigated the title of the Matahina block at a sitting of the Court in Whakatane before Judge Brookfield. The case opened on 6 September 1881, and closed on 21 September. The Court heard the evidence ~f the claimants and counter-claimants over 12 days. ,
The block was claimed by Nga Maihi hapu of Ngatj Awa. It appears that Ngati Pukeko were also included in this claim. This was stated by one of the Ngati Awa witnesses who appeared before the Court during the title investigation of the Tuararangaia block, which was located on the eastern side of the Rangitaiki River. The title of the Tuararangaia block was investigated in December 1890. Hire Weteri of Ngati Awa told the Court that when the title of the Matahina block was first investigated, 'N Awa and N Pukeko had one claim."
A survey of the Matahina block had been carried out by the claimants, and a plan of the survey was produced by them in Court. It showed the block to have an area of 85,834 acres. The claimants' case was presented by Penetito Hawea, who told the Court that the claim was based on ancestry, conquest and occupation. He stated that the claimants had residences and plantations within the block, and asserted that Ngati Awa had occupied the block 'from Ancient times to my own days without interruption'.2 Penetito informed the Court that a portion of land running along the southern boundary had been sold to the government by Ngati Manawa, and not by himself.3 He did not indicate that he considered this transaction to be unjust, or that he hoped to have the land returned to Ngati Awa if their claim to the Matahina block was proved.
Following Penetito's presentation of the Ngati Awa claim, objections challenging the claim were made by individuals representing the following.seven hapu and iwi:
Patuheuheu hapu of Tuhoe Ngati Rangitihi Ngati Hamua hapu of Ngati Whare Ngati Mura hapu ofNgati Rangitihi Ngati Hinewai hapu ofNgati Rangitihi Te Urewera hapu of Tuhoe N gati Manawa
During the proceedings of the first day of the hearing, the representative ofNgati Manawa, Te Waretini, withdrew his claim.4 Similarly, the claim of Te Urewera was withdrawn by
, Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 3,2 December 1890, p 243 2 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 6 September 1881, p 54 3 Ibid 4 Ibid, p, 58
23 Map 3 Sketch of Portions of the Matahina Block --Otipa", ~ . 1 W Claimed by Counter-Claimants, 1881 Waipatoto ~ ~ r E2 Portion ~ - claimedl \ ~ by ,- Ngat;
Waihinahina \ (appro)() ~ \ MATAHlNA BUSH N "Portion \ , ~ " claimed b1J \ \ "AI 0 J' " I'lgati Rangitihi \ 77 \ \ \ 1 \ 1,---____ \ Ran k h' ------~ gamaa u 'I~ Te 1\.1 h " (appro)() .... - l' one u ,'," I~ " ,.' <)1 1\.1otukur3jIl_ ...... '// ," 1W U 7. I~ ~l I" W ~ 'Ill ,'Ir , ~I Portion claimed » / by Ngali Hinewai :11 W , W w ~ ~,r ~ '/ , ?, M'ho W l~ r.'~ ~~-l~_'""-~t~~~ ~~motu 1:,ArUhetawhiri . ~ -- -.:; :;.-;::.-=-= =-=----_-J. (approx) I ---- T I ------~&t~o.l!a.tu.J
o 2 4 6 8 10 kilometres
24 Makarini Te Waru. The claims ofNgati Manawa and Te Urewera were stated to have been withdrawn upon their representatives establishing that they had 'no interest in the block as shown on the plan. '5 On the third day of the hearing, the representative of Ngati Mura, Mita Rawiri, withdrew the claim of that hapu after having come to an arrangement with Penetito Hawea. Penetito explained to the Court that he had agreed to insert in the list of owners the name of Mita's wife, Kerehuruhuru Pirika, who was a relative ofhis.6
3.2 The Case of Patuheuheu
The Patuheuheu counter-claim was presented by Mehaka Tokopounamu. Patuheuheu claimed a portion of land in the south of the block. Mehaka described the boundaries of this area of land, which is shown in Map 3. He told the Court that he claimed the land 'on behalf of myself and hapu', and that the claim was based on both ancestry and occupation. 7 Mehaka detailed that there were two ancestors through which he claimed the Matahina block, Mahu and Tangiharuru. He presented the following genealogies: 8
Mahu(m) Tangiharuru(m) I I Te Rangitaupiri(m) Tuwhare(m) I I Te Aohuruarangi(m) Kauae(m) I I Tamaka(m) Te Waiwhakaota(f)[?] I I Wharekohe(m) Onoa(m) I I I I Wairere(f) Whakatomarangi(f)[?] Te Hikinga(f) I I I Monehu(m)[?] x Apunga(m) Waikohua(f) I I I Te Ipu(mL Kapakapa( f) Tarahanga(m)[?] I I I Te lhanga(m) Ruka(m) Wi Patene(m) I I Te Umukohu(f) M Tokopounamu(m) I Te Kaho(m) I Te Hona(m)[?] I Te Apunga x
Mehaka asserted that Patuheuheu had occupied the portion that they claimed from the time of Tangiharuru, and that this occupation had 'never been disturbed'.9 He claimed to have never seen 'any fires or occupation by Penetito Hawea and his tribe', and stated that there had been no conquests of the land which Patuheuheu claimed. Mehaka detailed that Patuheuheu had a fighting pa called Opoukehu located to the south of the Pahekeheke Stream. During later cross-examination, he told the Court that his people were living at
5 Ibid, 11 October 1881, p 267 6 Ibid, 8 September 1881, p, 69 7 Ibid, 6 September 1881, p 55 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid, P 56
25 this pa when Ngati Hamua were conquered by Ngati Awa and Pukeko.1O Although he did not provide the names of particular kainga, Mehaka stated that Patuheuheu had houses, plantations and pigs on the block, and claimed that some Patuheuheu lived permanently upon the land. II
Mehaka was extensively cross-examined by Penetito Hawea, who challenged the Patuheuheu case that had been put before the Court. In response to Penetito's questioning, Mehaka told the Court that a boundary line had been created by Tangiharuru's son, Tuwhare, who divided land between Kauae, Hui, Koro, and Tokowaru, who were presumably his children. 12 Mehaka explained that Kauae was given the land claimed by Patuheuheu, while the others received the land contained in Kaingaroa 1. According to the genealogy that he had provided, Mehaka was a direct descendant of Kauae.
Mehaka stated that he was 'not aware' that Ngati Awa had occupied any of the portion of the block that was claimed by Patuheuheu. 13 He asserted that Ngati Awa had no plantations between the Waikowhewhe Stream and Te Raepohatu, and denied that Ngati Awa had saw pits in the area that he claimed. 14 Mehaka claimed that at the time that Ngati Hamua were conquered by Ngati Awa and Pukeko, his people were living at the Opoukehu pa. He denied that Ngati Awa had made incursions over the portion he claimed to kill his ancestors, and asserted that Ngati Awa and Pukeko had killed no people at Opoukehu. 15 Mehaka told the Court that prior to the survey he had received money for the land that he claimed. 16 He asserted that the land to the north of the portion claimed by Patuheuheu belonged to Ngati Hamua, and the land to the west to Ngati Rangitihi. 17
At the conclusion of Penetito Hawea's cross-examination of Mehaka, Wi Patene Tarahanga presented further evidence for the Patuheuheu claim. Wi Patene told the Court that the evidence given by Mehaka had been correct, but claimed that one important matter had been omitted from it. IS He claimed that the land from Te Raepohatu to the Waikowhewhe Stream had been adjudicated upon by a Commissioner's Court, and that his right to this land had been admitted by Penetito before this Court. 19 Wi Patene detailed that . four native assessors had sat on the bench, and that government officers had been present at the adjudication, which took place at TeUmuhika.20 It would seem that Wi Patene was referring to the meetings convened by Mitchell and Davies at Te Umuhika inMay 1876.21
Wi Patene informed the Court that he was presently living at Te Raepohatu. He asserted that:
10 Ibid, P 62 II Ibid 12 Ibid, P 59 13 Ibid 14 Ibid, P 60 15 Ibid, P 62 16 Ibid, P 59 17 Ibid,7 September 1881, p 64 IS Ibid, P 66 19 Ibid 20 Ibid, pp 66-67; ibid, 8 September 1881, p 70 21 See page 20
26 I am quite sure that this piece I claim belongs to me and my plantations are within it at Raepohatu and Pokairoa and [it] belongs to my Ancestors down to this day.22
Like Mehaka Tokopounamu, Wi Patene was extensively cross-examined by Penetito Hawea. During this cross-examination, Wi Patene acknowledged that he had received payment for the land. He told Penetito: 'You received money for the land under your Ancestor and I mine. '23 Wi Patene informed the Court that he had accompanied the survey party 'until my portion of the land was passed over'.24 He asserted, like Mehaka Tokopounamu, that portions of the Matahina block belonged to Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hamua. 25
Wi Patene was questioned by Penetito about the nature of his residence at Te Raepohatu. He explained that it was a permanent residence which had been 'kept up from the days of my Ancestors down to the present time. '26 He asserted .that the marks of his ancestors could still be found there, and explained that there were hollows in the ground and stones which indicated their former occupation of the place. 27 During the course of Penetito's cross-examination, Wi Patene acknowledged that Ngati Awa had plantations within the Matahina block at places called Te Henga, Karaka, Kaingatara, Ohui, Raoraokaretu, and Rangihua. Ohui is in the northern portion ofthe block, to the west of the Te Teko - Galatea Road. It is unclear where the other plantations were located. Wi Patene asserted that Motukura belonged to Patuheuheu. 28
Wi Patene admitted that he and others had not lived at Te Raepohatu for a period of time which ended in the mid 1870s. He stated 'that through the influence of the Government ... we and other "Hauhaus" were ... brought back to [Te] Putere.' Judith Binney explains that Tuhoe hapu supporting Te Kooti were pressured by the government to surrender.29 As a condition of their surrender, these hapu were expected to move to a coastal camp at Te Putere, near Matata, or else live with nominated Kawanatanga chiefs belonging to the Arawa or Ngati Awa tribes. In mid 1870, Patuheuheu surrendered to the garrison which was stationed at Fort Galatea. 3o Wi Patene told the Court that he had left Te Putere six or seven years earlier, going from there to Te Raepohatu. 31 He claimed that at the time of the arrival of the first Governor in New Zealand he was living with.his father on the banks of the Waikowhewhe Stream and at Te Raepohatu. 32
At the conclusion of Wi Patene's cross-examination, Mehaka called Hare Parakiri before the Court. Parakiri told the Court that he belonged to Ngati Manawa, and that he knew the
22 Ibid, P 75 23 Ibid, p 70 24 1bid,p71 25 Ibid, p 73 26 Ibid, pp 71-72 27 Ibid, P 72 28 Ibid, P 73 29 Judith Binney, Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, Auckland, Auckland University Press and Bridget Williams Books, 1995, p 225 30 Ibid, P 266 31 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 8 September 1881, p 75 32 Ibid
27 land at Raepohatu and Aruhetawhiri, which appears to have been located to the west of Raepohatu in the portion claimed by Patuheuheu.33 He asserted that:
I myself have never heard of any conquest of this land south ofthe Waikowhewhe river. I never seen any fires ofN Awa burning south of it. I have seen houses and plantations of yours on that land. I came through it on the 6th of August last also at Pokairoa. I have not heard ofPenetito having any marks on the line from Raepohatu to Waikowhewhe.34
During cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Parakiri assured the Court that he was telling the truth when he said he belonged to Ngati Manawa. He told the Court that he was giving evidence because he was a descendant of Kauae. 35
3.3 The Case of Ngati Rangitihi
Ngati Rangitihi's claim was presented by Mikaere Heretaunga. After being sworn before the Court, Heretaunga was cross-examined by Niheta Kaipara, also of Ngati Rangitihi. Heretaunga told the Court that he belonged to Ngati Rangitihi iwi and Ngati Tarawai and Ngati Kaia hapu. He proceeded by describing the boundaries of the portion of the Matahina block which Ngati Rangitihi claimed. This area is shown in Map 3. Heretaunga stated that the eastern boundary of the portion he claimed was 'a division line between Matahina proper and Pokohu proper.' He asserted that Ngati Awa had no plantations to the west ofthis line.36
Heretaunga stated that his claim was on the grounds of conquest and occupation. He told the Court that he had four ancestors through whom he claimed the land, and proceeded to present the following genealogies: 37
Tarawai Waiata(f) I I Te Rangi Takaroro[?] Tutehoenga I I Tutewhakamaro Urupurea I Tunawheke Katuha I Tamaihu Ngahungatapu I Whareparoa Hinetau I I Heru Tahuna I I Mohi Ihu Umuwhakarau I I I Mikaere Heretaunga Pukiemarie Uruika[?] I Mikaere Heretaunga Pirika Rangikaiwhiri
33 Ibid, P 75 34 Ibid, P 76 35 Ibid 36 Ibid, P 77 37 Ibid, pp 77-78
28 Tarehina(t) Te Rangipatahi Ngahuingatapu I Te Matau(m) Hinetau I Te Atariki(t) Tahuna I Kauwhaka(t) Umuwhakarau I I Rauhanga( t) Ihu I I Kura(t) Tahuna Pukiemarie I I Umuwhakarau Mikaere Heretaunga I Ihu I Pukiemarie
Mikaere Heretaunga
Heretaunga stated that the whole of Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai were included under the ancestor named Tarawai. 38 He identified that his first ancestor was Ngatoroirangi, who lived some nine generations before Tarawai. He claimed that the ancestors given in the genealogies were' all direct descendants from that ancestor and have occupied this piece of land from their time to the present. '39
Heretaunga told the Court that he had lived on the portion of the Matahina block that he claimed, but was presently living at Matata. However, he claimed that some Ngati Rangitihi occasionally lived on the block in houses that they possessed. Heretaunga . acknowledged that murders had taken place, but claimed that 'No tribe has ever come to drive us off this land. '40 He identified that there were kumara and potato plantations at locations named Te Maruetorua, Te Kokota, and Okorotere. He claimed that the plantation at Okorotere 'has been kept up from the time of our ancestors down to the present time. '41 Heretaunga also told the Court the names of at least eight pa which he claimed were occupied by the ancestors who he had named. He explained that some of these pa were 'fighting pa', while others were 'merely residences' .42
Speaking of the 'quarrels and disturbances' that he knew of on the land claimed by Ngati Rangitihi, Heretaunga told the Court that, in the time of his ancestors, Ngati Raweka 'came from the South' under their leader Uenukukopako, and temporarily occupied a pa called Kaiurumatapo.43 The sister of Heretaunga's ancestor Tarehina was killed when Ngati Raweka were not provided with food. Heretaunga claimed that this killing was avenged, and that 'Uenukukopako was killed and the whole of his people were slain' .44
38 Ibid, P 77 39 Ibid, pp 78-79 40 Ibid, P 79 41 Ibid 42 Ibid, 9 September 1881, P 80 43 Ibid, pp 80-81 44 Ibid, P 81
29 It appears from Heretaunga's evidence that, during the course of the survey of the Matahina block, the boundaries of the portions subject to counter-claim were also defined. Heretaunga claimed that when the Ngati Rangitihi boundary line was laid north of Motukura, Rangitukehu had been present, and had said, 'Very well let your line run along there. '45 Heretaunga asserted that 'There was no dispute at that time about the line. '46 During cross-examination by Henare Te Rangi of Ngati Hinewai, Heretaunga stated that the 'whole of the hapus included under N[gati] Rangitihi were engaged in the survey of the line from Waihinahina to Aruhetawhiri. '47 He acknowledged, however, that Ngati Hinewai had a separate claim, and had disagreed with the line between Rangamaaka and Aruhetawhiri. Heretaunga told the Court that Ngati Hinewai had plantations between these two places.48
At the conclusion of Mikaere Heretaunga's evidence, Huta Tangihia was sworn before the Court. Tangihia provided further evidence for the Ngati Rangitihiclaim.He told the Court that all of Heretaunga's evidence was true, and that he was very familiar with the portion of Matahina block claimed by Ngati Rangitihi. Tangihia spoke of his activities upon this land. He claimed that he had planted on the land every succeeding year since the time of his childhood. Tangihia also stated that he had caught eels, fed pigs, and kept horses on the land, as well as having collected honey after bees were introduced.49 He asserted to 'have never seen N Awa within the boundaries of the portion of the land we are claiming since I have been there. '50
During brief cross-examination by Mehaka Tokopounamu, Tangihia told the Court that Ngati Haka lived between Waikowhewhe and Te Raepohatu, and that the 'whole of the Arawa' knew that Mehaka had come to the Court from that land. 5J
Tangihia was next cross-examined by Penetito Hawea, who questioned Tangihia's knowledge of the land claimed by Ngati Rangitihi. Tangihia was solicited to provide detail about the physical features of the land, and events which had occurred upon it. He admitted to not knowing the origin of certain place names, but could tell the Court the names of the five streams which flowed from the land claimed by Ngati Rangitihi into the Tarawera river. 52
Te Waretini of Ngati Manawa spoke next for the Ngati Rangitihi claim. TeWaretini, who stated that he knew 'something but not all' about the land which Ngati Rangitihi claimed, told the Court that the evidence given by Mikaere Heretaunga and Huta Tangihia had been 'substantially true' .53 He identified that there was a Ngati Rangitihi residence at Te Monehu, and that potatoes were grown at a place called Waiotu. 54
45 Ibid, P 82 46 Ibid, P 82 47 Ibid, P 83 48 Ibid 49 Ibid, P 85 50 Ibid 5J Ibid, P 86 52 Ibid, pp 88-89 53 Ibid, P 89 54 Ibid
30 During cross-examination by Te Whaiti Paora of Ngati Hamua, Te Waretini told the Court that he was aware that the land north of the Waikowhewhe Stream belonged to Ngati Hamua. He stated that he had seen Te Whaiti conducting the survey over this land, but he had been aware ofNgati Hamua's ownership ofthe land before this.55
Responding to cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Te Waretini stated that he had resided at Waiotu before the survey, and that this was his permanent place of residence. Te Waretini said he could not deny that stumps of trees upon the Matahina block indicated where Penetito's ancestors had made canoes. However, he claimed that the canoes were made 'stealthily', and were outside of the portion claimed by Ngati Rangitihi.56 Te Waretini asserted that he had never seen sheep belonging to Penetito on this land. He also told the Court that Penetito' s mother had burnt his house and clothes because he had hunted pigs on the disputed land. He detailed that in 1873 she was fined £3 by a Maori Committee for trespassing and damages. 57
The final person to give evidence for the Ngati Rangitihi claim was Niheta Kaipara. During cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Niheta described the boundaries of the land which was claimed by Ngati Rangitihi, and told the Court that there were marks of his ancestors along the boundary line. 58 Niheta explained that the place called Te Aruhetawhiri received its name because his ancestors used to dig fern roots there. 59
3.4 The Case of Ngati Hamua
Te Whaiti Paora presented the Ngati Hamua case. Te Whaiti detailed the boundaries of the portion of the block he claimed on behalf of Ngati Hamua. This is shown in Map 3. He told the Court that his claim was based upon ancestry and occupation. He provided the Court with the following genealogy:60
Te Ratapairu I Whakautauta
Te Rangimarere I Hamua
Tamanuka I Tairahina[?] I Te Rangihuirui I Porowha I Te Karoaterangi[?] I
55 Ibid, p 90 56 Ibid, pp 90-91 57 Ibid, p 91 58 Ibid, 12 September 1881, p 94 59 Ibid, P 95 60 Ibid
31 Paora Tauwhitu[?] I Te Whaiti Paora
Te Whaiti asserted that his ancestors had 'not been disturbed in their occupation of this land' .61 However, he told the Court that his own occupation of the land had been temporarily disturbed. He stated that this had taken place since 1840, 'during the fights against Te Kooti', at the conclusion of which he had returned to the land. 62 When he was later cross-examined by Penetito Hawea, Te Whaiti explained that at the time of the conflict between Te Kooti, Ngati Awa, and Arawa, 'r was invited by the Officers of the Government to come back and live at Putere being one ofTe Kooti's followers. '63
Te Whaiti detailed that his ancestors had only one pa located upon the land that he was claiming. This pa was located at Otipa, in the Matahina block's north-eastern corner. Te Whaiti told the Court that he had a residence at Otipa, and also at places called Waitatariki and Kaitangata. He informed the Court that his present residence was at Kaitangata, and stated that he had come to Court from there.64 Te Whaiti told the Court that he had cultivations on the land he claimed, and also stated that there was a cave at Otipa, 'where all our dead are buried. '65 Te Whaiti claimed that none of his ancestors had been killed in fighting, and asserted that Ngati Awa 'have no possessions in the portion of land they claim. '66
Te Whaiti was extensively cross-examined by Penetito Hawea. Responding to Penetito's questioning, Te Whaiti spoke ofthe first of his ancestors to come to Otipa, Ratapairau. He told the Court that 'Ratapairau is to us the shape of a God and cared not for women or anything she. '67 According to Te Whaiti, Ratapairau was born at the place of his ancestors, Ohiwa, 'but went from there to Otipa where his descendants have lived ever since. ,68 Te Whaiti asserted that 'Our fires in the land have never ceased at Otipa', and stated that his father had lived at Otipa before being killed fighting the government at Orakau. 69
Te Whaiti stated that four Ngati Hamua were at the Court sitting, and that 'upwards of a hundred persons' had been left behind on the portion claimed by Te Whaiti. 70 He told the Court that he and his people had not resided at Otipa since the time of Te Kooti's fighting. 71 Te Whaiti claimed that the place of his present residence, Kaitangata, had been a residence of his ancestors, whose houses were still standing. 72
61 Ibid, P 96 62 Ibid 63 Ibid, 64 Ibid 65 Ibid 66 Ibid 67 Ibid 68 Ibid, pp 96-97 69 Ibid, P 97 70 Ibid 71 Ibid, 72 Ibid, P 98
32 In response to questions from Penetito relating to Ngati Hamua's occupation of the land, Te Whaiti asserted that his ancestors had 'suffered no defeat on this block.'73 He denied that Ngati Hamua, or at least his section of the hapu, had ever been conquered or displaced by Ngati Awa:
It was the Warahoe whom you devoured. If the N[gati] Hamua were cut off from this land it was the N[gati] Hamua on your side .... I was living on the block at the time the N[gati] Hamua were cut off from this land by N[gati] Awa they were not those of my side.74
Warahoe, like Ngati Hamua, are a hapu of Ngati Whare. 75 Best claims that Warahoe were originally a branch of Ngati Awa, although 'never a large or important one'.76 He also identifies a connection between Warahoe and Tuhoe, which he explains to be a result of common descent from Toi and Toroa, and intermarriage between Warahoe and the descendants of Tuhoe-potiki. 77 As explained in section 1, Warahoe were living at a pa named Tokotareke at the time that Ngati Awa expelled Warahoe and Ngati Hamua from the Rangitaiki district. Located outside of the Matahina block, Tokotareke was positioned on the western bank of the Rangitaiki River, about two kilometres north of the Ngati Hamua residence at Otipa. 78
At the conclusion of the evidence given by Te Whaiti, Te Whatanui was sworn before the Court. The minute book record does not detail who called Te Whatanui before the Court. Te Whatanui claimed to belong to Ngati Hamua, and stated that he considered some of the evidence given by Te Whaiti to be false. He asserted that the land at Otipa belonged to Ngati Hamua, but told the Court that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had been defeated at Otipa by Ngati Awa many years before he was born.79 Te Whatanui explained that those who escaped fled to Te Whaiti, Ruatahuna, and Taupo, and that after peace was made 'Te Rangitukehu went and brought them back' .80 Te Whatanui claimed that these events took place 'long before the first Governor came' .81 He told the Court that, following the return of Ngati Hamua to Otipa, he had built houses and planted peach trees there. 82 Like Te Whaiti, Te Whatanui stated that Ngati Hamua left the land when the fighting between Te Kooti and the government commenced. 83
Te Whatanui was briefly cross-examined by PenetitoHawea. In responseto.a question by Penetito, he told the Court that Te Whaiti's residence and plantation at Kaitangata was 'very recent' .84 Also, he acknowledged that Te Whaiti's assertion that Ngati Hamua had never been defeated on the portion that they claimed was false.
73 Ibid 74 Ibid 7S Best, pp 137-138 76 Ibid, P 167 77 Ibid, P 169 78 Ibid 79 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 12 September 1881, P 99 80 Ibid 81 Ibid 82 Ibid, pp 99-100 83 Ibid 84 Ibid
33 The final person to present evidence relating to the case of Ngati Hamua was Makarini Te Waru, who informed the Court that he belonged to Urewera and Nga Maihi. Makarini stated that the land north of Tokotokorau belonged to Ngati Hamua, but asserted that Ngai Maihi owned the land between Waikowhewhe and Tokotokorau.85 Makarini claimed that Kaitangata belonged to Ngati Rakei, a hapu of Tuhoe, who lived there interspersed among N gati A wa. 86
3.5 The Case of Ngati Hinewai
Henare Te Rangi presented the claim of Ngati Hinewai. Te Rangi's first witness was Te Morihi Paurini. Te Morihi told the Court that he belonged to Ngati Hinewai, and described the boundaries of the portion of the Matahina block which the hapu claimed. This is shown in Map 3. Te Morihi told the Court that his claim was based on ancestry, and provided the following genealogy:87
Hinewai = Paengatu I Hawairua Kahukura I I Ta Raianui = Kauhou[?] I Repe I Te Rangimauriora I Te Rangipakurui I Tuata[?] I Whakarau I Te Taea[?] I Rongo I Awahou I Pungatai( f) I Paurini
Moutu Paerimu[?]
Te Morihi stated that all of Ngati Hinewai descended from these ancestors, and explained that the land they claimed had belonged to Paengatu, who married Hinewai. He told the Court that because his ancestors had 'great possessions' they 'sometimes lived on this land and sometimes on others'.88 Te Morihi detailed that Paengatu had occupied a pa at Te Rangamaaka, and used to dig fern roots at Aruhetawhiri. He told the Court that birds had been caught on the block, and that there had been a plantation at Te Monehu down to his
85 Ibid 86 Ibid 87 Ibid, P 10 1 88 Ibid
34 father's time.89 Te Morihi asserted that he had never heard that his ancestors were disturbed in their occupation of the land. However, he told the Court that during the days of his great-grandfather, Rongo, Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai left the Matahina block, and had never returned to live permanently upon the land which they claimed.90 Te Morihi did not explain why his ancestors had ceased to live upon the land, but claimed that a relationship with the land had continued undisturbed. He stated that Ngati Hinewai had continued to hunt upon the land, and that his father had kept a plantation upon it which he himself had tended until five years previously. Te Morihi told the Court that Ngati Awa had never interfered with him during the times when he planted upon the land. 91 He also informed the Court that he had seen cows belonging to Henare Te Rangi grazing upon the portion claimed by Ngati Hamua, and asserted that Ngati Awa had neither cattle or houses upon this land. 92
During cross-examination by Mehaka Tokopounamu, Te Morihi stated that he had never caught eels from the Waikowhewhe Stream or its tributaries because of a boundary which existed between Ngati Hinewai and Ngati Haka. He told the Court that his ancestors had a stone mark in the shape of a lizard which indicated this boundary.93
Responding to cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Te Morihi accused Penetito of having attempted to prevent Ngati Hinewai from surveying the portion that they claimed:
I am aware that the Government is the high Authority relative to the Surveys and their Officers go to the parties to whom the land belongs to point out the lines and called upon N Awa to do so concerning Matahina.... You and your party came to dispute with our Surveying the disputed line but did not succeed in doing so. I know it was on account of the Government Officers that we proceeded to put our line through.94
At the conclusion of Te Morihi' s evidence, Hakopa Takapou was sworn. Hakopa told the Court that his genealogy was the same as Te Morihi Paurini's genealogy down to Rongo. He provided the following details: 95
Taea I I I Rongo Te Wahanga I Wahiwahia(t) I Kaiewe(t) I Takapou I HTakapou
Hakopa stated that while he was living in Matata he had 'been in the habit of going to and fro to eat of the production of this land. '96 To demonstrate that he was familiar with the
89 Ibid, pp 101-102 90 Ibid, P 102 91 Ibid 92 Ibid, pp 102-103 93 Ibid, 13 September 1881, P 103 94 Ibid, P 105 95 Ibid, P 106
35 land which Ngati Hinewai claimed, Hakopa told the Court of five totara trees that were located at Ngamotu, three of which were named. He asserted that Ngati Awa had never disturbed him while planting on the land, or while building a house upon it. 97
During cross-examination by Niheta Kaipara, Hakopa denied having ever seen Ngati Rangitihi working upon the land claimed by Ngati Hinewai. He also denied that Ngati Rangitihi had pulled up a plantation of potatoes belonging to Ngati Hinewai. 98
In response to cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Hakopa told the Court that he was presently growing potatoes on the land. He denied that the potatoes which were pulled up belonged to Ngati Awa. Hakopa acknowledged that a house belonging to Ngati Hinewai had been burned down by some Ngati Awa while pig hunting. He claimed that this had been an accident, not an action which demonstrated Ngati Awa's authority over the portion claimed by Ngati Hinewai. 99 He stated that those involved had been summoned before a 'Maori meeting' and had been fined £3 for ,the loss of the house and the property within it. 100
3.6 The Case of Ngati Awa
The first witness to· speak for the Ngati Awa case was Hamiora Tumutara. Penetito Hawea cross-examined Hamiora, who told the Court that he belonged to Ngati Awa. He asserted that all of the evidence that had been given by the counter-claimants was incorrect, with the exception of that given by Makarini Te Waru. lol Hamiora proceeded to describe the boundaries of the block, and in the course of doing so spoke of the places that he named along the boundary. He explained the origins of the names of some of these places, and also detailed the historical association which Ngati Awa had with them. He told the Court, for example, that the place called Te Panepane was given that name because 'it was a battle field where many were slain by N gati Awa.' 102 Hamiora stated that the place called Oteranginui was named 'after a tree in which the Ancestors used to snare birds and kill kakas', and asserted that the hollows of houses that belonged to his ancestors could still be seen at this place. 103 According to Hamiora, Kaitangata received its name 'because it did not matter what time any traveller passed that spot he was gobbled up by the monsters from the deep.' 104
Disputing the evidence given by Ngati Hamua, Hamiora told the Court that the pa at Otipa belonged to his ancestors, who were living in it at the time that Te Whaiti's ancestors arrived. 105 Hamiora asserted that 'at first they lived together but N Awa afterwards slaughtered the N Hamua and Te Warahoe at Otipa'. 106 He stated that the survivors of
96 Ibid 97 Ibid 98 Ibid,pl07 99 Ibid, P 108 100 [bid, P 106 101 Ibid, 14 September 1881, plIO 102 Ibid, pIlI 103 Ibid 104 [bid, P 112 105 Ibid 106 [bid
36 Ngati Hamua escaped to Maungapohatu, while the Warahoe survivors fled to the Waikato and Taupo. Hamiora told the Court that he agreed with Te Whatanui's statement that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had been brought back by Rangitukehu to live under his protection. to? Hamiora remarked that he had never seen Te Whaiti or his father living or working at Otipa.
Hamiora claimed that, at the same time that the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe were displaced from Otipa, 'the N Haka and other people were swept off this land ... it was completely cleared.' 108 He alleged that a battle occurred at Motukura, and another between the Pahekeheke and Pokairoa Streams. 109 Hamiora asserted that Ngati Haka's permanent residences were 'a long way from this block in a south easterly direction from the Rangitaiki river.' 110 He asserted that the houses mentioned by Mehaka Tokopounamu and Wi Patene on the western side of the Rangitaiki river were 'common houses in which they reside whilst fishing' .111 Hamiora told the Court that Wi Patene's principalresidence was at Te Houhi, on the eastern side of the river. He stated that 'he has never had any plantations of his own or his fathers before him within this block' . 112
Hamiora stated that the marks that Ngati Hinewai had given as those of their ancestors were not correct. He argued that 'their residence from old' was located at Te Rerewhakaaitu, 'a long way off. 113 Hamiora claimed that, at a location in the Rerewhakaaitu block, the 'Ancestors of Ngati Awa had a battle with N Hinewai in which they slaughtered them' ."4 He asserted that Ngati Hinewai had no plantations within the Matahina block.
Hamiora argued that the evidence presented by Ngati Rangitihi did not suggest a particularly close association with the land. He stated that one of the places that Ngati Rangitihi had mentioned in their evidence, Waihinahina, was outside of the block. He asserted that there were two springs in the portion claimed by N gati Rangitihi which they did not identify, and claimed that 'Strangers unacquainted with my land would not know its features and that is why the N Rangitihi did not know of these springs.' 115
Hamiora told the Court that none of the counter-daimants had any plantations or houses within the Matahina block. He claimed that Ngati Awahad numerous plantations, and identified 10 places within the block where crops were planted, or had been.planted in the past. Hamiora stated that there were houses belonging to Ngati Awa at five of the places where crops were grown. He told the Court that he was born at a place within the block called Kakahotoa, which was located on the banks of the Rangitaiki River. 116
10? Ibid, P 114 108 Ibid, P 113 109 Ibid, 15 September 1881, P 124 110 Ibid, 14 September 1881, P 113 111 Ibid 112 Ibid, P 117 113 Ibid,p 114 114 Ibid 115 Ibid, P lIS 116 Ibid, 15 September 1881, p 125 (wrongly numbered p 124)
37 It was stated by Hamiora that there were saw pits at three locations within the Matahina block: Kaingatara, Rangiahua, and Te Raoraokaretu. The saw pit at Kaingatara was said to belong to a Benjamin Savage, and was stated to 'have been standing there many years before the fighting with the Europeans took place.' 117 The saw pit at Rangiahua, Hamiora stated, belonged to a Mr White. Hamiora told the Court that there was no forest around the Waikowhewhe, Pahekeheke, or Pokairoa Streams. He asserted, however, that if there had been trees in these areas, 'we should have given them to Tikitu [Mr White] or any other white person for money'118 Hamiora stated that the 'poverty of the land' around the Waikowhewhe, Pahekeheke, and Pokairoa Streams explained why Ngati Awa did not have plantations in these areas, where the land 'only grows rushes'. 119 It was asserted by Hamiora that Ngati Awa had sheep running over the whole of the Matahina block. He stated that these sheep were tended by a shepherd who lived within the block at a place called T e Pungapunga. 120
Hamiora told the Court that one of his claims to the block was through ancestry. He did not detail which of his ancestors was the first to occupy the Matahina block, but proceeded to give the following genealogy, claiming that the whole of Nga Maihi and Ngati Awa descended from these ancestors: 121
Mahu I Te Rangitaupiri I Tamaka I Wairere(f) I Te Aohurungateao[?] I Tuteao I I Rongomanarua Tamatete I I I I I I Tupare Tamatua(m) Te Aohurungaarangi(f) Tinipara(f) Tuwhakarau Ruapare(f) I I I Uwawera Hikoinani[?] , Tawhina[?] I I Kainuku TeIkapakai Te Rangipakakina I I Ngariritaua Morowhata(f) Kurukuru I I I I Te Aomarama Tumuwhare( f)[?] Onauku[?] Rehe Tikitu I I I Tapapa(f) Rangitukehu Titireha I Porotuna(f) Hoani Tuhimata I Paeaka[?] I Hamiora Tumatara
117 Ibid, 14 September 1881, p 116 118 Ibid 119 Ibid, pp 116-117 120 Ibid, P 117 121 Ibid
38 During cross-examination by Mehaka Tokopounamu, Hamiora again told the Court that Patuheuheu had no residences within the block, only temporary houses that they used while catching eels. 122 However, at a later point in Mehaka's cross-examination, Hamiora acknowledged that Mehaka had places at Waikowhewhe, Pokairoa, and Te Raepohatu, but qualified this by stating that they were recent residences. 123
Hamiora claimed to have no knowledge of letters requesting the removal of Ngati Awa's sheep from the land south of the Waikowhewhe Stream. He reminded Mehaka that: 'We have tried to put you out of your houses and off the land .... Te Rangitukehu has been to you once to· inform you that you had no business on the land.' 124 Hamiora told Mehaka that: 'The reason we did not break down your home and fence was because we left it to the Native Land Court to decide.' 125 Responding further to Mehaka's cross-examination, Hamiora told Mehaka that he had heard him state that he was a descendant of Mahu, but asserted that 'none of the land within this block divided off for the descendants of MahU.,126
Hamiora was next cross-examined by Niheta Kaipara. Hamiora informed Niheta that he was not acquainted with the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Ngati Rangitihi, but stated that Ngati Awa's claim extended over this land through conquest. 127 Hamiora told Niheta that Ngati Awa had had plantations in the area claimed by Ngati Rangitihi:
I have not stated that I have any plantations in that portion you are claiming but named those I have in this block which is outside the boundaries disputed by you. My Ancestors occupied along the whole of the outskirts of the bush along the west and north western boundary shown upon this map. I did not leave those plantations meaning to give them up but to try other places. 128
Hamiora denied seeing houses and plantations belonging to Ngati Rangitihi at Monehu when he conducted the survey of the block. Similarly, he stated that he had no knowledge of Nih eta's father having a plantation at a place named Okorotere. 129
The final person to cross-examine Hamiora was TeWhaiti Paora. Hamiora asserted that Ngati Hamua lived upon a portion of the Matahina. block under the authority of Ngati Awa. He told Te Whaiti:
I have stated that I agree with the statement made by Makarini Te Waru before the Court that your land extends from Tokotokorau northwards, so far as concerned the N Hamua intermingled with N Maihi. The N Maihi received you as strangers .... Otipa was a pa belonging to N Maihi and [Ngati Hamua] was allowed to remain their [sic] at the present time because they [Nga Maihi] befriended you .... Wharewera (Rangitukehu) allowed
122 Ibid, I 19 123 Ibid, 15 September 1881, P 126 124 Ibid, P 121 125 Ibid 126 Ibid 127 Ibid, P 126, P 128 128 Ibid, P 127 129 Ibid, P 129
39 you to live at Otipa because he wished you to live in his presence having taken pity upon you. 130
Hamiora told Te Whaiti that 'The whole of the land you claim belongs to the N Maihi.' 131 He asserted that he had 'never known N Maihi to give land to those who are not interested in it.' 132 Hamiora explained that Rangitukehu had given Te Whaiti some of the money advanced for the purchase of the Matahina block 'from affection', not because he was entitled to receive it. 133
The final person to cross-examine Hamiora was Hakopa Takapou, who did so on behalf of Henare Te Rangi. Among other matters, Hakopa questioned Hamiora on the burning of the Ngati Hinewai house by Ngati Awa while pig hunting. This house had been located on the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Ngati Hinewai. Hamiora told the Court that Ngati Hinewai had had no right to:build a house upon the land or hunt pigs, and asserted that the fine that was levied in relation to the incident was for the property within the house, and not the house itself. 134
Hamiora asserted during his cross-examination by Hakopa that his ancestors had made canoes in the portion of the Matahina block claimed by Ngati Hinewai at a place called Kopeke. However, Hamiora denied that Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai had ever been called upon to help drag the canoes from this place, stating that they 'lived a long way off' . 135 Hamiora acknowledged that he knew of the stone in the shape of a lizard which had been mentioned by Te Morihi Paurini. He claimed to have seen this stone, which he gave the name Mokaikaioterangipapiri, but denied that it marked a boundary between Patuheuheu and Ngati Hinewai for fishing in the Waikowhewhe Stream. 136
At the conclusion of Hamiora's cross-examination by Hakopa, Hone Matenga was sworn before the Court. Penetito Hawea cross-examined Matenga, who told the Court that he belonged to Nga Maihi.137 Matenga stated that he entirely disagreed with the whole of the evidence given by the counter-claimants. He said that he was 'well acquainted with the fact that this block of land belongs to us [and] that all these hapus are trying to get it from US.,138 Matenga asserted that all of the evidence given by Hamiora had. been correct. 139 Adding to this evidence, he told the Court that 'one of the great marks' upon the land had been a large totara tree at Te Mihiawhakaata.Accordingto Matenga, this tree, which had recently been burnt, 'was used as a dividing mark between Pou and Mahu.' 140
Responding to Penetito's cross-examination, Matenga attacked the evidence that had been put before the Court by the counter-claimants. He told the Court that the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Patuheuheu had 'never been settled upon from the
130 Ibid, pp 129-130 131 Ibid, 16 September 1881, p 131 132 Ibid 133 Ibid, 15 September 1881, p 130 134 Ibid, p 133 I3S Ibid, p 134 136 Ibid
137 Ibid, P 135 138 Ibid, P 138 139 Ibid, P 135 140 Ibid
40 olden days to the present' .141 He claimed that if Mehaka Tokopounamu had ever attempted to take permanent possession of this land 'my weapon would have passed over his head at once.'142 Matenga stated that Ngati Awa had 'slaughtered' Mehaka's people at a battle called Ngahunga, which had taken place 'a long way from this block.' 143 Continuing, Matenga told the Court that:
After that battle Te Urewera N Haka N Manawa and N Whare joined themselves together and came to take revenge on us the N A was. We defeated them at Otipa they did not gather from places on this block to that spot they came from Ruatahuna Te Whaiti and Okarea. This was the battle which swept all the residents on the east side of the Rangitaiki river away they fled to Ruatahuna Te Whaiti & Ohikino. 144
Matenga asserted that Ngati Hamua were a section of Nga Maihi, and that their land was on the eastern side of the Rangitaiki River. He told the Court that his grandfather had been killed by Ngati Hamua and Warahoe, and in retaliation to this NgatiAwa 'arose and destroyed them ... and swep' d them off the land'. 145 Matenga claimed that the 'refugees' fled to Ruatahuna, Maungapohatu, Waikato, and Taupo. Like Hamiora Tumutara, Matenga told the Court that these people had been invited 'out of affection' by Rangitukehu to return to the land. He claimed that this had happened since 1840, and that 'they did not return as retaining any authority or Chieftainship', but instead were subservient to Rangitukehu. 146 Matenga acknowledged that Rangitukehu had given Ngati Hamua some of the money that had been advanced for the purchase of the Matahina block, but stated that it was given only to 'those who are incorporated with us' .147 He explained that Rangitukehu had 'divided the money received for this block of land amongst his own hapus and also amongst those who have no right upon this land as an act of courtesy and as a Chief. 148 Continuing from this, Matenga told the Court that:
he [Rangitukehu] gave Te Whaiti no money and that is the reason he has set up a counter claim, he was not sent for to be present at the division of it because he had no claim to Otipa, his Ancestors have always lived outside this block of land at Horomanga at the foot of Tawhiuau also at Kaimakapana[?] also at Houhi and Raoraopatate. I have never heard that Tangiharuru and his descendants had any claim to this block of land. 149
Matenga claimed that Ngati Rangitihi had never had plantations or residences within the Matahina block. He asserted that their ancestors were not near the block when Ngati Awa conquered the land, claiming that 'from of old the N[ga] Maihi are the on1y people who have occupied the Matahina block'. 150 He told the Court that a 'great army' of N gati Awa went from the Matahina block and defeated Ngati Rangitihi at Lake Tarawera in a battle called Taururua; He did not specify when this battle occurred, but stated that in his youth another Ngati Awa army went to Lake Tarawera to fight Ngati Rangitihi. He told the Court
141 Ibid, P 136 142 Ibid 143 Ibid 144 Ibid 145 Ibid, P 137 146 Ibid 147 Ibid 148 Ibid 149 Ibid 150 Ibid, P 135
41 that Ngati Rangitihi were 'not living on this land at that time either.' 151 Matenga stated that Ngati Hinewai had been slaughtered by Ngati Rangitihi at Kourariki on Lake Tarawera, and 'had never had any occupation on this block from the olden days to the present.' 152 Matenga asserted that the principal residence of Ngati Rangitihi was at Matata, and that both Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai had come to the Court from that place. 153
Following his cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Matenga was cross-examined by Mehaka Tokopounamu. Matenga admitted that Mehaka had residences and plantations at Waikowhewhe, Te Muriwaiopokairoa, and Te Raepohatu. However, like Hamiora Tumutara, he claimed that these residences were recent, having been occupied by Mehaka after leaving Te Putere. 154 Explaining why Patuheuheu had been allowed to occupy the land at these places, Matenga told Mehaka that 'I allowed you to plant at Waikowhewhe Pokairoa and Raepohatu because you went there recently and would make no difference.'155 He explained that 'Mana over the land' was acquired only through permanent residence. 156 Matenga claimed that the Ngati Awa plantations were located in 'the richest part of the bush', but then acknowledged that 'the richest spots' were on the banks of the Rangitaiki River, where the Patuheuheu plantations were located. 157 Matenga told the Court that although his ancestors had only one pa within the Matahina block, which was called Te Ruaotane, 'they resided all over it.'158 Responding to Mehaka's questioning, Matenga provided details of the battle in which he claimed N gati Awa drove Patuheuheu offthe land. He asserted that this battle had taken place when he was a child at a location named Ngahuinga. This place is located outside of the Matahina block. Matenga told Mehaka that 'the children of your Chief "Koura" was killed there.' 159 He explained that Koura 'had many hapus under him', and that Ngati Haka were included among these hapu. '6o Best states that Ngati Awa attacked Ngati Manawa at Ngahuinga in about the year 1833. He details that during the course of the conflict, two daughters of the N gati Rongo chief Koura were captured, one of whom was subsequently killed. 161
Matenga was cross-examined next by Niheta Kaipara. Matenga denied that any portion of the Pokohu block was included within the Matahina block. 162 He claimed that the boundary between these two blocks, as shown upon the plan before the Court, was the boundary established between Mahu and Pou; Mahu held· the land on the Matahina· side, while Pou held the land on the Pokohu side. 163
During cross-examination by Te Whaiti Paora, Matenga stated that Te Whaiti's father, Tamihana, had been 'the Chief over this land' prior to Ngati Awa's conquest. 164 It appears
151 Ibid, pp 135-l36 152 Ibid, P 136 153 Ibid, pp 137-l38 154 Ibid, P 138 155 Ibid 156 Ibid 157 Ibid, pp 139-140 158 Ibid, P 139 159 Ibid 160 Ibid 161 Best, p 465 162 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, 15 September 1881, P 140 163 Ibid 164 Ibid, 19 September 1881, P 143
42 that the land spoken of here was the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Ngati Hamua. Matenga told the Court that 'We fought with N Hamua on account of Kaiwaka', but provided no further details to illuminate this statement. 165 He informed Te Whaiti that the 'N Hamua who are connected with Rangitukehu did fight against the N Hamua you represent'166 Matenga stated that the section of N Hamua connected to Te Whaiti returned to the Matahina block prior to the beginning of the fighting with the government. Matenga told the Court that when this fighting commenced 'they were expelled again.' 167 Contradicting what he had earlier stated, Matenga stated that Rangitukehu had given £50 'through love' to Te Whaiti's section of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. 168
Hakopa Takapou was the last person to cross-examine Matenga. Hakopa conducted his cross-examination on behalf of Henare Te Rangi. Matenga described the Ngati Hinewai boundary shown on the plan to be 'a new boundary of theirs occasioned for the want of money.' 169 He told the Court that the building belonging to Ngati Hinewai which was burnt down had been not been a permanent residence, but merely a 'pig hunting shed.' 170 During the course of his cross-examination by Hakopa, Matenga asserted that the counter claimants were 'all in league against US.'171
The final person to give evidence for the Ngati Awa case was Rangitukehu. Penetito Hawea cross-examined Rangitukehu, who stated that he belonged to Nga Maihi hapu and was 'Chief of all the N Awa tribe.'172 He stated that he was the 'Chief man' over the whole of the Matahina block, 'as Mount Edgecumbe ... is the Chief Mountain'.173 Rangitukehu asserted that that 'from my Ancestors down to my self no one has ever dared to dispute with me respecting this land.' 174 He claimed to have disturbed the counter-claimants from the Matahina block, and stated that he had never seen the parents or grand-parents of any of the counter-claimants cultivating on the block. 175
Rangitukehu claimed that he took part in the fights which resulted in Ngati Hamua and Warahoe being driven off the Matahina block. He stated that this conflict took place 'before the first Governor came'.176 Rangitukehu told the Court that he did not ask the Ngati Hamua andWarahoe to return to the land,.but:rather they 'came and asked my permission to allow them to do so.' 177 Rangitukehuremarked .that he had allowed the returning N gati Hamua and Warahoe to settle at Otipa '.because I had taken it from them and it was in my hand' .178 He told the Court that, after returning to the block, they became 'Hauhaus' and began fighting the government. Rangitukehu recalled that when Ngati
165 Ibid 166 Ibid 167 Ibid 168 Ibid 169 Ibid, P 145 170 Ibid 171 Ibid 172 Ibid, P 147 173 Ibid 174 Ibid 175 Ibid, pp 147-148 176 Ibid, P 150 177 Ibid, pp 148-149 178 Ibid, P 149
43 Hamua left the land they told him: 'if you are victorious, all the land will belong to you - if we - the land will belong to us.' 179 With regard to the distribution of the money advanced on the Matahina block, Rangitukehu asserted that he had not given £50 to Te Whaiti. He stated that this money had been given to those 'who placed themselves subservient to me after their return. ' 180
Rangitukehu dismissed the claim of N gati Rangitihi, stating that they had been conquered outside of the boundaries of the Matahina block. He told the Court that he had made no conquest over Ngati Hinewai, but stated that there home was at Rerewhakaaitu. Similarly, Rangitukehu asserted that Patuheuheu had no legitimate claim to land within the Matahina block because 'they belong to the Urewera tribes and have their possessions at Maungapohatu and Ruatahuna. ' He acknowledged that Wi Patene and Mehaka Tokopounamu had plantations within the portion that they claimed, but asserted that they had only been there recently. 181
After his cross-examination by Penetito had been completed, Rangitukehu was cross examined by Mehaka Tokopounamu. In response to Mehaka's questioning, Rangitukehu acknowledged that the Matahina block had historically been divided, but he claimed that these boundaries had been 'obliterated' through the conquests of himself and his ancestors. 182 He remarked that Putauaki, or Mount Edgecumbe, should have properly been included within the Matahina block. 183 Rangitukehu stated that when Ngati Awa had cleared the Matahina block of its other occupants, they had killed Whitirere, who he claimed Ngati Haka were descended from. Rangitukehu told Mehaka that, at the conclusion of Mehaka's fighting with the government, 'I said to you come back not to the land but to our hand.' 184
Rangitukehu was next cross-examined by Niheta Kaipara.Rangitukehu told the Court that he had never seen Ngati Rangitihi upon the Matahina block, but acknowledged that he was aware that they sometimes hunted pigs on the land. 185 He claimed that he had not shown anger at this 'because since the Government administration we have been living in peace with each other.' 186
During cross-examination by Te Whaiti Paora, Rangitukehu acknowledged that Te Whaiti had had plantations at Otipa following the initial return ofNgatiHamua to the Matahina block. However, Rangitukehu told Te Whaiti: 'I took the land back because you joined the King [Movement] and came back to cut my head off .187 Rangitukehu told the Court that, at the conclusion of their conflict with the government, he had spoken to a meeting of refugees convened at Galatea, and had invited them to 'come back and live upon the palm of my hand.' 188
179 Ibid, P 148 180 Ibid 181 Ibid, P 149 182 Ibid, P 150 183 Ibid 184 Ibid, P 151 185 Ibid, 21 September 1881, p 154, 157 186 Ibid, P 157 187 Ibid, pp 159-160 188 Ibid, P 160
44 The final person to cross-examine Rangitukehu was Hakopa Taka.pou, who did so on behalf of Henare Te Rangi. Rangitukehu told the Court that he had participated in the killing of Kahukura, whom he claimed to be a hapu of Ngati Hinewai. He stated that this battle had taken place at a pa which stood at the foot of Putauaki. 189 Rangitukehu denied that there was a boundary between Ngati Haka and Ngati Hinewai, asserting that 'it's money that has made that boundary.' 190
3.7 The Court's Judgement
Judge Brookfield suspended the delivery of his judgement of the Matahina block title investigation until the claims to the adjacent Pokohu and Putauaki blocks had been heard. The judgement was finally delivered on 11 October, some three weeks after the presentation of evidence had concluded. The Court found:
that Ngati Awa have proved their title of themselves and Nga Maihito the land shown on the plan and as claimed by them, that Ngati Hamua and NgatiHaka.have failed to show any title to the portions claimed by them as hapus, but that those members of those hapus who have become incorporated with Ngati Awa have an interest in that portion of the block which lies between Otipa on the north and Raepohatu on the south the Galatea road on the west and Rangitaiki river on the East, that Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai have failed in supporting their claims. 191
Judge Brookfield did not justify this judgement with detailed reference to 'the vast amount of evidence' which he acknowledged had been presented to the Court. Brookfield claimed, however, that the judgement had been reached after 'long and careful consideration' of this evidence, which he accurately described to be 'of the most contradictory nature'. 192 In relation to the claims of Patuheuheu and Ngati Hamua, Brookfield considered that the evidence showed that:
both these hapus were many years ago driven away by the Ngati Awa from the land which no doubt they originally occupied, and have never since retaken it or become repossessed of it in any way except that they have been permitted of late years to have a few cultivations on the banks of the Rangitaiki River. It appears however that some members of those hapus became incorporated with the :Ngati Awa and, continued'to reside upon the land. 193
Brookfield commented very briefly on the claims of Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hinewai, stating simply that their claims rested 'principally on the fact of their having occupied certain portions of the land claimed from ancient days to the present time'. 194 He also acknowledged that they considered the Matahina block to include a portion of the Pokohu block, which they also claimed.
The judgement stated that a certificate of title was to issue in favour of Ngati Awa and 'such members of Ngati Haka and Ngati Hamua as have become incorporated with Ngati
189 Ibid, pp 161-162 190 Ibid, P 163 191 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1,11 October 1881, p 269 192 Ibid 193 Ibid, P 268 194 Ibid
45 Awa'.195 Also, as agreed when the claim of Ngati Mura was withdrawn, the wife of Mita Rawiri, Kirihuruhuru Pirika, was to appear on the title. On 19 September, lists of names were submitted to the Court. The Matahina block was divided into two portions, and the minute book records that all parties with an interest in the block agreed to this division. 196. The smaller portion, named Matahina 2, contained 37,300 acres of land south of the Waikowhewhe Stream. The list of owners submitted for Matahina 2, to which there were no objections, contained 25 names. 197 The list gave the names of the leading men ofNgati Awa, including Rangitukehu, Penetito Hawea, and Hamiora Tumutara. The remainder of the Matahina block was named Matahina 1, and contained an area of 41500 acres. The list of Ngati Awa owners submitted for Matahina 1 numbered some 267 individuals. 198 Te Whatanui withdrew a list he had submitted on behalf of Ngati Hamua owing to it being objected to.199 A list submitted by Mehaka Tokopounamu on behalf of Patuheuheu was also withdrawn, because 'it was not admitted as a whole and without discussion. '200
195 Ibid, P 269 196 Ibid, 19 October 1881, P 331 197 Ibid, pp 331-332 198 Ibid, pp 332-336 199 Ibid, P 336 200 Ibid
46 4. Between the Title Investigation and Rehearing, 1881-1884
4.1 Attempt by the Crown to Define its Interest in the Matahina Block
On 26 October 1881, following the Court's judgement, Gill wrote to Brabant about the recovery of the money which had been paid under the terms of the Pokohu lease, and also that which had been advanced for the purchase of the land. Gill also discussed the recovery of the money which was owed on the survey of the Matahina block. I He stated that those who had been awarded the block admitted that £274 Is 6d was 'due on the land', but refused to acknowledge 'other items of advances'. Gill considered that 'a fair charge' for the survey was £675 12s 8d, and calculated that the total charge to be recovered was £949 14s 2d. He told Brabant that the matter was to have been settled at the Court sitting at Whakatane, but this had been made impossible because an application fora rehearing had been made.
On 13 October, Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Patuheuheu had lodged an application for a rehearing of the title investigation.2 In February 1882, the Chief Judge gave notification that the title investigation of the Matahina block was not to be reheard. 3 Following the removal of the prospect of a rehearing, Rangitukehu wrote to Gill, offering to sell a portion of the. Matahina block to the government.
Friend the decision of the Court has been defmitely given in respect of the Matahina block and in favour of me and my hapu with the persons to whom the Crt awarded that block.
Now with respect to the land for you that has been fixed at five thousand acres, but it is our wish that twenty five thousand acres should be taken by you at seven shillings per acre out of which you can deduct that cost of the survey and the amount of our indebtedness to the Government. If you agree to this quantity of land and the price per acre do you be speedy as we are waiting here.4
It appears from the letter that an agreement had previously been reached whereby the government was to purchase 5000 acres of the block. Mair informed Gill that the owners expected to get only half of the seven shillings per acre which they had requested.s Gill proceeded to arrange to have the Crown's interest cut out of the Matahina block. He applied for this to be carried out at a scheduled sitting of the Court at Whakatane in September.6
On 8 July, Ihaka and 19 others, who claimed to represent 'all the [Ngati Awa] tribe', wrote to Native Minister John Bryce requesting that they be allowed to refund the money which constituted the government's interest in the Matahina block.? Gill instructed that the
I Gill to Brabant, 26 October 1881, MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 2 Walzl, p 25 3 Dismissal of Application for Rehearing, 23 February 1882, New Zealand Gazette, 1882, no 25, p 399 4 Rangitukehu to Gill, 13 April 1882, MA-MLP 1 1882/163, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington S Mair to Gill, 26 April 1882, MA-MLP 1 18821163, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 6 Walzl, p 30 7 Ihaka and others to Bryce, 8 July 1882, MA-MLP 1 1882/242, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington
47 correspondents be informed that they could discuss the matter with Mair in September, while he was in Whakatane attending the sitting of the Court. 8 On 16 August, a letter to the Native Minister was written by Rangitukehu and 19 others, again requesting that Ngati Awa be allowed to refund money to the government:
This is an appeal of ours to you to return to the Maoris the following three blocks of land: Putauaki Te Pokohu Matahina If you agree to do this we will refund the monies advanced upon them, and the expense of the surveys. Now therefore do you give effect to the appeal of your Maori friends, be kind to the orphan and the indigent. 9
Commenting on this letter, Gill advised Bryce that 'The writers should be replied to that Government cannot accept a return of the money paid. ,to Bryce agreed with this recommendation, and instructions were given for areply to be senttothe correspondents. I I On 17 August, two further letters were written by individuals .belonging to Ngati Awa. 12 These letters, which were respectively sent to Gill and Bryce, again requested that permission be granted to allow the refund of money to the government.
On 24 September, Gill met with Ngati Awa in Whakatane. Individuals belonging to Ngati Awa had gathered there to be present when the Court heard the application for the Crown's interest to be cut out. Gill met with Rangitukehu and others, and informed them that consideration was again been given to a rehearing of the title investigation. Gill told Rangitukehu and the other Ngati Awa that, until this matter had been settled, he 'could not say whether the money advanced might be returned or land taken for the money that has been paid. '13 Gill reported that, upon hearing this, 'They were satisfied.' 14
On 5 February 1883, Rangitukehu and Timi Waata Rimini wrote to Gill. They stated their letter to be the 'decisive word ofNgatiawas ... respecting their land Matahina':
During the months past we have been endeavouring to [md out the reason why you have delayed cutting out· the portion you say is to pay for the money. advanced by the Government. We do not see why there should be this delay inasmuch as the ChiefJudge had long ago published a notice dismissing applications for the rehearings ofthis block. 15
8 . Gill to Davis, 29 August 1882, MA-MLP 1 1882/242, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 9 Rangitukehu and others to Bryce, 16 August 1882, Native Office 1882/2819, found in MA-MLP 1888/50, NA Wellington 10 Gill to Bryce, 4 September 1882, 4 September 1882, MA-MLP 1 1882/350, found in MA-MLP \893/46, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 31 II Bryce minute, 6 September 1882, on ibid, cited in Walzl, p 31; Gill to Davis, 6 September, MA-MLP 1 1882/350, found in MA-MLP 1 1893/46, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 31 12 Hamiora and others to Bryce, 17 August 1882, Native Office 1882/2819, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington; Hamiora and others to Gill, 17 August 1882, Native Office 1882/2819, found in MA MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 13 Gill minute, 8 October 1882, of file cover, Native Office 1882/2819, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 14 Ibid 15 Rimini and Rangitukehu to Gill,S February 1883, MA-MLP 1 18831153, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington
48 Gill minuted the untranslated version of this letter, detailing that he had 'explained to the writers . . . that the cutting out of land for the Govt to pay for the survey etc must stand over for a time till the question of title is settled.' 16
4.2 Events Leading to the Rehearing of the Matahina Title Investigation
Despite the decision given by the Chief Judge in February 1882, members of Patuheuheu did not abandon their lobbying for a rehearing. 17 Walzl states that, by September 1882, it had been substantiated that there had been a procedural error on the part of the Court assessor. 18 On 20 September, the Under Secretary of the Native Office, TW Lewis, telegraphed Gill in Whakatane, advising him of developments. Lewis informed Gill that the Premier wanted an adjournment of the Court's hearing of the Crown's application to have its interest cut out of the Matahina block. Lewis stated that:
it appears pretty clear that injustice has been done to some natives shut out of the block when previously before the court and Premier desires that nothing should be done to alter position of parties until some arrangement is made to remedy injustice .... 19
Ngati Awa protested against a rehearing of the title investigation of the Matahina block. Timi Waata Rimini and Rangitukehu, in the letter which they had written to Gill on 5 February 1883, asserted that there had been nothing in the actions of the assessor which justified a rehearing:
we heard a report that the Government intended getting Parliament to authorise an application for a rehearing namely that of Ngatihaka the tribe whose claim was entirely disallowed by the Court. We also heard that the reason for the government doing so was because of a letter written by the assessor of the Court to the Chief Judge stating that he did not see some of the land marks of that tribe [and] possibly that was the reason why their claim was disallowed by the Court.
Now Friend we assert that the statement made by that assessor is wrong because we and that assessor did not go to the land marks at Matahina, that is the land marks of the Ngatihaka tribe. We went instead to examine the land marks of the Pokohu Block in connection with the contention between Ngatiawa Ngatipou & Ngatirangitihi in consequence of the statement made by the Ngatirangitihi that the Pas, the houses and the cultivations at Te Pokohu were theirs alone.· ... that was the reason whyweapplied to the Court and it consented and ... that Assessor went and we also.
It was not until after the Assessor's return that the Court gave Judgment in respect of these lands Matahina, Te Pokohu and Putauaki. We know that the judge who presided at that Court is a very able lawyer and would not gave [sic] judgment in respect of those lands unless fully satisfied of the facts, and that if the land marks that the assessor attached to the Court had been sent to examine had been over-looked very likely the Judge would have sent him back to examine them.
However friend the Court gave a clear judgment in respect of Matahina, and the claims of Ngatihaka were disallowed because of the superior claim of Ngatiawa through conquest because of which there was no necessity for the Assessor going to examine the land marks.
16 Gill minute, 23 April 1883, on ibid 17 Walzl, p 32 18 Ibid 19 Lewis to Gill, 20 September 1882, MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington
49 Now, Mr Gill do you yourself make known what we say to Mr Brookfield the Judge of that Court who is now at Maketu who can substantiate or disprove this statement. Do you send a speedy answer because all Ngatiawa are very sorrowful on account -of the delay in respect of this land the adjudication of which took place so long ago. 20
The available evidence suggests that Rimini and Rangitukehu were correct in their assertion that the assessor visited the Pokohu block, but not the Matahina block. In the Whakatane Native Land Court minute book, there is a report on the Pokohu block by the assessor Rakena Wi Kaitaia, but no such report for the Matahina block, nor is one mentioned in the minutes of the Court or the judgement.21
On 2 August 1882, Wi Patene and three other members ofPatuheuheu wrote to the Native Minister, informing him that they no longer wanted a rehearing of the title investigation. They told the Native Minister that the wish.of Patuheuheu 'has been complied with regarding Waikowhewhe . . . which they considered had been wrongly awarded by the Native Land Court. ,22 This suggests that Patuheuheu had come to an arrangement with Ngati Awa over the portion of the Matahina block which they had unsuccessfully claimed during the 1881 title investigation. Commenting on the statement that Patuheuheu no longer desired a rehearing, Gill informed Bryce that:
Matahina is the land over which a rehearing has been sanctioned on the ground that the Assessor of the NL Court did not do his duty. I think a rehearing should take place. The Natives might be informed in reply that the Government have considered the question and have decided that the Interests of all parties would be better determined by a rehearing.23
The title investigation of the Matahina block was reheard under the provisions of the Special Powers and Contracts Act 1883, which was enacted on 3 September.24 In regard to the Matahina rehearing, the relevant provisions of the 1883 Act read:
For the purpose of rectifying certain procedures under the Native Lands Acts, and to more satisfactorily determine the titles, according to Native customs and usages, to the blocks of land known as Paengaroa, Rauo-te-Huia, Pukehina, Puketauhinu, Whakapapakihi No 1, Matahina, Pokohu, and Hauturu, rendered,necessary by technical errors and defaults in the procedures aforesaid, having no relation to the several titles on the merits. 25
Gill had recommended to the Native Minister that the title of the Pokohu 'Matahina' originally was considered a part of 'Pokohu' and treated as such. I think the reason that applies to the further investigation of the Title to Matahina must also take in the Pokohu Judgment and that power should be taken in the Special Powers and Contracts 20 Rimini and Rangitukehu to Gill,S February 1883, MA-MLP 1 1883/153, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 21 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 1, undated, pp 277-279 22 Patene and others to Bryce, 2 August 1883, MA-MLP 1 18831213, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 23 Gill to Bryce, 3 August 1883, on ibid 24 There is no record of a debate of the bill in the House of Representatives or Legislative Council. The Special Powers and Contracts Act was a local act which was passed annually to allow for the rectification of incidental matters. Bennion and Miles, p 227 25 Second column, number 4, Special Powers and Contracts Act 1883 50 l Acts 1883 for the Native Land Court to reinvestigate the title both to Pokohu and Matahina. 26 4.3 Summary Following the awarding of the Matahina block to Ngati Awa, the Land Purchase Department began organising to have the Crown's interest in the block defined. Patuheuheu applied for a rehearing of the title investigation, but in February 1882 notification was given that there would be no rehearing. In April, Rangitukehu offered . 25,000 acres to the government, and asked that the money owed by Ngati Awa be deducted from the purchase payment. However, in July, Rangitukehu and others requested that they be allowed to refund this money. They were advised that this would not be possible, and in September Ngati Awa were informed that the matter of the Crown's interest could not be settled because of the prospect of a rehearing.Patuheuheu had continued calling for a rehearing, apparently on the grounds that there had been a procedural error on behalf of the Court assessor. This was accepted, and despite protests by N gati Awa, it was decided that the title investigation would be reheard. In August 1881, Wi Patene and other members of Patuheuheu requested that the rehearing be cancelled, presumably because they had reached an arrangement with Ngati Awa. This request was dismissed, and provisions for the rehearing of the title investigation were contained in the Special Powers and Contracts Act 1883. 26 Gill to Native Minister, 25 May 1883, on file cover, MA-MLP 1 18831165, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 51 5. Rehearing of the Matahina Block Title Investigation 31 January 1881 - 18 February 1884 5.1 The Claimants and Counter-Claimants As with the original title investigation of the Matahina block, the rehearing was held at a sitting of the Native Land Court at Whakatane. Judges Puc key and Mair presided over the rehearing. The size of the Matahina block differed from that given in the first title investigation. The original plan had included an area north of the Ngatamawahine Stream which had been sold to the government as part of Kaingaroa 1. Excluding this land, the area of the Matahina block was 78,860 acres. The claimants were again N gati Awa, whose claim was once more presented by Penetito Hawea. During the Tuararangaia block title investigation, Hire Weteri told the Court that at the Matahina block rehearing 'Warahoe were mixed up with N Awa & N Pukeko'.1 Outlining Ngati Awa's claim, Hamiora Tumutara restated that it was based on the grounds of ancestry, occupation, and conquest. He detailed that his ancestor Mahu had become possessed of the land. Hamiora claimed that all of the ancestors through whom he had descended from Mahu had resided on the Matahina block. He gave the names of 15 places of occupation, all of which were marked on the plan before the Court. Hamiora stated that there were wide Ngati Awa interests in the block, but claimed that the 'chief hapu was Nga Maihi.2 Ngati Awa's claim was challenged by six counter-claims, which were presented to the Court by the following individuals: 3 (1) Mehaka Tokopounamu, who represented: (i) Ngati Haka (ii) Ngati Manawa (iii) a section of Ngati Hamua (2) Makarini Te Waru, who represe,nted"Ngati Rakei (3) Houkotuku, who represented a section of Ngati Hamua (4) Anaha T e Rahui, who represented Ngati Rangitihi (5) Wi Hapi, who represented the individuals Hakaraia and Ema Wi Hape Map 3 shows the portions of the Matahina block claimed by each of the counter-claimants. The counter-claimants were not identical to those who had contested Ngati Awa's claim during the first title investigation. Ngati Hinewai did not feature among the counter claimants during the rehearing, but their interests may have been represented in the claim of Ngati Rangitihi. The claims of Ngati Manawa, Ngati Rakei, and that presented by Wi Hapi for Hakaraia and Mihi Peka, were all new. Penetito Hawea admitted the claim of Houkotuku, stating that the claim concerned those Ngati Hamua who were incorporated 1 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 3,5 December 1890, p 275 2 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 2,31 January 1884, p 220 3 Ibid, P 221 52 Map 4 Sketch of Portions of the Matahina Block Claimed by Counter-Claimants, 1884 Waihinahina \ (approx) ~ :I' \ ~ \ MATAHINA BUSH ~ \ ~'1Portion \ \ N ~~ claimed by \ ~ Ngati Rangitihi \ I Oteranginui \ \ I I \ \ 1 I ~ Rangamaaku ~T~~onehu : (approx) ... __ ',. --- . ,." rI'I -- l'Vl~"\,..' ...... " ~'f ,,, r/' Ilf ~i' I~ 7Z'/; ~'" r ~ / ~ 'I Portion claimed by Wi Hap; '" ,/ on behalfofHakaraia 'I/ fJ'I and Ema Wi Hapi It, ~ ~ ~ ~ , 0 0 ~ ~~M"l/ it WhaJ..Tllol ' N III :-;,\. •• " ga/llO(u I't ~, 1',Aruhetawhiri 1"-.' I T \, ;,;-=-=-:..~===-::..-::.-::..-::..~.=-li_~t:..P~:~ ______:~:c22.'2.aIU ~ ... ~ ~~ ...... 'V" () oj 10 ~ilollll:lrc~ 53 with Ngati Awa. 4 During the second day of evidence, Makarini Te Waru informed the Court that the claim of Ngati Rakei would be included in that being presented by Mehaka for Ngati Haka, Ngati Manawa, and a section ofNgati Hamua. 5 The evidence presented during the rehearing was substantially the same as that which had been given during the first title investigation. The summary of evidence which is given below avoids repeating the large volume of detail which is provided in Section 3. However, the following summary does not omit significant evidence which was presented for the first time, especially that which relates to the claims of those who did not contest the ownership of the Matahina block in 1881. 5.2 The Case of Ngati Haka, Ngati Manawa, and Ngati Hamua The first witness called by Mehaka Tokopounamu was Aperaniko Te Hura,who told the Court that he belonged to Patuheuheu and Ngati Manawa. He described the boundaries of the land claimed by Ngati Haka and NgatiManawa, and stated that he claimed the land through ancestry, occupation, and conquest. He explained that his ancestor Tangiharuru had conquered the land, and that 'from Tangiharuru's time we have held constant occupation of the land.'6 Aperaniko told the Court that the land between the Rangitaiki River and the Te Teko-Galatea Road, from Waikowhewhe to Otipa, belonged to Ngati Hamua. 7 During cross-examination by Makarini Te Waru, Aperaniko explained that Te Whaiti Paora belonged to Ngati Manawa as well as Ngati Hamua. He stated that Te Whaiti lived at Kaitangata alone, and that there were no houses there. According to Aperaniko, Te Whaiti was the brother of Makarini Te Waru's wife, who was a chieftainess of Patuheuheu. He acknowledged that Makarini Te Waru lived on the land, but asserted that it was only 'by the permission of Patuheuheu.'8 Following this, Makarini Te Waru informed the Court that he would include his claim with that which was being presented by Mehaka. Aperaniko was next cross-examined by Mikaere Te·· Wharerau,who had taken responsibility for conducting the Ngati Rangitihi case because . Anaha Te Rahui had become ill. Responding to this cross..,examination, Aperaniko ·acknowledged the boundaries of the land which was claimed by Ngati Rangitihi, and told the Court that the boundary between Patuheuheu and Ngati Rangitihi had been 'mutually agreed upon'.9 During cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Aperaniko told the Court that Ngati Hamua had had cultivations at Otipa and at a location called Tatarariki. He claimed that these cultivations had been worked by Tamawhatu, who was later to speak in support of the claim presented by Mehaka Tokopounamu for a section of Ngati Hamua.1O Aperaniko told the Court that Tamawhatu had ceased working upon the cultivations in 1865, 'the year of 4 Ibid 5 Ibid, 1 February 1884, p 225 6 Ibid, 31 January 1884, p 222 7 Ibid, P 224 8 Ibid 9 Ibid, 1 February 1884, p 225 10 Ibid 54 our fight with the Hauhau'll He asserted that Tamawhatu fought with the Hauhau against the government, and was presently living at Te Whaiti, outside the block. 12 Aperaniko claimed that Ngati Hamua had had no cultivations within the block since 'the fight with the Government.' 13 He told the Court that he was 'positive' that plantations at a location named Raoraototara belonged to Ngati Rangitihi, although he later stated that 'they have neither cultivations nor houses at the present time at Raoraototara. ' 14 Aperaniko stated that a portion of the Matahina block should have properly been included in Kaingaroa 1, which was located immediately to the south. He claimed that this land had been excluded from Kaingaroa 1 because Wi Patene had been advanced money for the purchase of it from Davis and Mitchell. 15 He told the Court that, 'before the advent of Christianity', Ngati Haka and Ngati Manawa lived in the pa at Opokehu, which he described to be 'an island between the rivers Pokairoa and Pahekeheke'.16 Aperaniko also stated that his ancestors had lived 'in the open' at Te Raepohatu, where he claimed there were presently five houses standing. 17 The next witness sworn before the Court was Tamawhatu At the beginning of his cross examination by Mehaka, he told the Court that he belonged to Ngati Hamua, and proceeded to detail the boundaries of the land which Ngati Hamua claimed. 18 Tamawhatu stated that his claim was through ancestry and occupation. He told the Court that all of Ngati Hamua descended from the ancestor Te Rangimarere, and claimed that they 'have all permanently resided on the land and were never disturbed by other tribes.' 19 Tamawhatu stated that Ngati Hamua had two pa upon the land which they claimed: Mataraura, near Kaitangata, and Otipa. 20 He claimed that: 'We have lived in these pas from my ancestors' time ... down to the present day. '21 Tamawhatu gave the names of five places where he claimed Ngati Hamua had cultivations. He stated that these cultivations 'have been continuously kept up by us to the present day. '22 Remarking on Ngati Awa's claim to the Matahina block, Tamawhatu asserted that: The Ng' Awa have no pas whatever on this land. I know of no plantations oftheirs either upon this land nor of any marks of cultivation or occupation whatever. The' places occupied by the N' Awa both from what I have heard and.from personal observation have been at Te Kokohinau, Umuhika and at Whakatane. We have never been disturbed in our possession of the land except in fighting with the Government.23 During cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Tamawhatu stated that Ngati Hamua occupation was being 'kept up' by his cousin, Te Whaiti Paora, and his aunt, II Ibid 12 Ibid, P 226 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Ibid, pp 226-227 16 Ibid,227 17 Ibid, pp 227-228 18 Ibid, P 230 19 Ibid 20 Ibid, pp 230-231 21 Ibid P 231 22 Ibid 23 Ibid, P 232 55 Whareterauhi. 24 He told the Court that Te Whaiti had gone to live at Kaitangata to oppose Ngati Awa's ownership ofthe land after the 1881 adjudication. He asserted that statements made by Te Whatanui during the first title investigation had been false. Tamawhatu also asserted that Ngati Awa did not conquer Ngati Hamua, and thereby force them to move to Ruatahuna, Taupo, and other places. He claimed that, 'We withdrew before the fight in order to escape consequences. ,25 During cross-examination by Mikaere Te Wharerau, Tamawhatu stated that the fight in question was exclusively against the Warahoe, who he asserted lived outside ofthe block and had no claim to it. 26 The next witness sworn before the Court was Manuka Maparau. Maparau stated that he was a chief of the Ngati Manawa, but also claimed to belong to Patuheuheu and Ngati Hamua. 27 Maparau told the Court that he was 'a permanent dweller' at Te Raepohatu, where he claimed there were plantations belonging to Ngati Manawa and Patuheuheu.28 Maparau gave the names of four other places where plantations were located, stating that they belonged to either Patuheuheu or Ngati Hamua. He detailed that posts had been erected by his ancestors at Te Raepohatu, and at a place called Kopuahao. Maparau claimed that the post at Te Raepohatu had been erected by Tuwhare, a descendant of Tangiharuru. He told the Court that both of these posts 'were put up to guard people against taking fish from the river or fruit from the land.'29 Commenting on Ngati Awa's claim, Maparauasserted that they had no pa, houses, plantations, or burial grounds upon the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Patuheuheu, Ngati Manawa and Ngati Hamua. Maparau stated that Ngati Awa have always occupied the banks of the Whakatane River, and lived at Te Teko and Kokohinau. 30 During cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Maparau spoke of fighting which had occurred between Ngati Manawa and Ngati Awa at Otipa and two places outside of the block, Ngahuinga and Parakakahiki. Maparau suggested to Penetito that: 'You know as well as I do that these fights of old were for the sake more of killing people to eat than for endeavours to acquire fresh territories. '31 5.3 The Case of Ngati Rangitihi Mikaere Te Wharerau told the Court that the portion of the Matahina block claimed by Ngati Rangitihi had been continuously occupied by that iwi since the/time of his ancestor Kahukura. 32 Te Wharerau claimed that his ancestors had occupied four pa upon this land. He told the Court that these pa were named Te Totara, Otewehi, Te Rangamaaka, and Ohirihiri. Te Wharerau stated that, while living in these pa, his ancestors subsisted on kumara, fern-roots, berries, birds, rats, and eels. 33 He gave the names of three places where he claimed existing or historic cultivations of N gati Rangitihi were located. He stated that 24 Ibid, P 233 25 Ibid, P 234 26 Ibid, P 235 27 Ibid, 5 January 1884, p 240 28 Ibid, P 236 29 Ibid, P 237 30 Ibid, P 238 31 Ibid, P 239 32 Ibid, 6 February 1884, p 241 33 Ibid 56 cultivations at Okorotui had been tended by his ancestors, 'and in my own time ever since I was young. '34 Te Wharerau told the Court that cultivations at Raoraototara had belonged to Pirika, 'a man of importance' who had been 'always opposed to the Ng' Awa' .35 Te Wharerau provided the Court with details of the incident mentioned in the initial title investigation, when a house at Raoraototara belonging to Te Waretini had been burnt by N gati Awa. 36 During cross-examination by Mehaka Tokopounamu, Te Wharerau acknowledged the claims ofNgati Haka, Ngati Manawa, and Ngati Hamua. He stated that the land east of the portion claimed by Ngati Rangitihi belonged to Ngati Haka and Ngati Manawa. Te Wharerau told Mehaka that: 'This land has been continuously occupied by your people since [the] days of [your] ancestors.>37 Following his cross-examination by Mehaka, Te Wharerau was cross-examined by Wi Hape. Te Wharerau told the Court that Hakaraia, who Wi Hape represented, had 'a good claim under my ancestor to this part'.38 Te Wharerau was next cross-examined byPenetito Hawea; Te Whareraustated that Ngati Awa had a legitimate claim only to the land that lay north of the Waikowhewhe Stream, between the portions of the block claimed by Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Hamua. He told the Court that he had become aware of Ngati Haka and Ngati Hamua's occupation of the land when he had accompanied a military expedition during the war. 39 Te Wharerau admitted that he was unsure whether or not the pa that he named were located within the Putauaki block. After the Court returned from an adjournment, Timi Waata took over the cross-examination of Te Wharerau in the absence of Penetito Hawea. Responding to Waata's questioning, Te Wharerau acknowledged that Arawa had sustained defeats in fighting with Ngati Awa, but asserted that this fighting had never taken place within the boundaries of the Matahina block. He claimed that, 'During the days of the ancestors the people were numerous and the land was held against all comers. '40 5.4 The Case of Hakaraia and Ema Wi Hapi Wi Hape· told the Court that he gave evidence on behalf of an individual named Hakaraia, and Hakaraia's grand-niece, Ema, who was Wi Hape's wife. The land which was the subject of Hape's claim, contained a significant portion of the land which was claimed by Ngati Rangitihi. Hapi stated that the claim of Hakaraia and EmaWiHapi·was based on continual occupation of the land from the time of their ancestor, Hinemau Kurangi, the wife of Pou, who 'got the land through her ancestor Maahu. '41 Wi Hape provided the following genealogy:42 Hinemau Kurangi I Rangitaua 34 Ibid 35 Ibid 36 Ibid, P 242 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 Ibid, P 243 40 Ibid 41 Ibid, 7 February 1884, p 244 42 Ibid, pp 244-245 57 Rangitaumanu I Tarawhata Whakaata Manuwhiri Turangawatea I Hineawi I Te Tohonga I Te Kikiwhero I Te Kukume I Ngawai I Ema Wi Hapi Hape claimed that no one pa had been continuously occupied within the part of the Matahina block which he claimed. He stated that there was a kainga at a location called Waipohue, near the source of the Mangawhio Stream, where the ancestor Whakaata had lived, and had been taken from before being killed at Te Mihi a Whakaata. Hape told the Court that Aruhetawhiri 'is where they used to dig fern root. '43 Hapi was first cross-examined by Mikaere Te Wharerau. Responding to his questioning, Hapi stated that Hakaraia had told him that he had visited Waipohue prior to 1840 for the purpose of hunting pigs and catching eels. Hapi claimed to have been there himself in 1872. He told the Court that there were no whare at Waipohue, and explained that 'people lived in the pas, but went to this place to get food. ,44 Hapi stated that when he visited Raoraototara, 'I saw only evidences of the land having been cultivated. '45 Hapi was briefly cross-examined by Penetito Hawea; during which he acknowledged that part of the block belonged to Mahu. Commenting on the claim of NgatiRangitihi, Hapi asserted that 'Rangitihi's line on the plan should not be there. '46 5.5 The Case of Ngati Awa The evidence presented to the Court by the Ngati Awa claimants was largely the same as that which they had given during the first investigation of title. Hamiora Tumutara did most of the speaking as Ngati Awa put its case before the Court. Hamiora was followed by Hiri Wetere and Hone Matenga. Hamiora began by providing the Court with details of Ngati Awa's occupation of the land, stating that there were kainga located at Te Wharepu, 43 Ibid, P 245 44 Ibid 45 Ibid 46 Ibid, 246 58 Okotuku, Tokotokorau, and Okarema.47 He told the Court of places where his ancestors had hunted upon the land, and the special marks which indicated their occupation.48 Hamiora then proceeded to dismiss the evidence which had been given by each of the counter-claimants. Beginning with the case ofNgati Rangitihi, he asserted that three of the places identified by Mikaere Te Wharerau to be within the Matahina block, Te Totara, Otewehi, and Okorotui, were located in the Putauaki or Pokohu blocks.49 Hamiora told the Court that he had always known this, and that this knowledge had been confirmed from the observations he made whilst conducting the survey of the block. He stated that: 'Ng' Rangitihi are claiming'the cultivations of our Ancestors and are trying to make out that they were the cultivations of their Ancestors. '50 He claimed that 'there would have been fighting' if Ngati Rangitihi had lived on the block 'during the days of the Ancestors'.51 Hamiora stated that Ngati Awa had fought and conquered Ngati Murakauhe on the portion of the Matahina block which was claimed by Ngati Rangitihi. 52 He asserted that, at the time of this fighting, Ngati Rangitihi were living atTarawera and Okataina: As to Wi Hape' s claim on behalf of Hakaraia and Ema, descendants of Hinemau Kurangi, Hamiora stated that he disagreed with it entirely. He told the Court that he himself was a descendant of Hinemau Kurangi, but had no claim to the block through her because she 'left Matahina and settled at Pokohu and never returned. '53 Hamiora acknowledged that Hakaraia had been admitted as an owner after the first title investigation, but claimed that this was 'an act of grace' .54 Hamiora rebutted the claim of Ngati Hamua with the same argument that Ngati Awa presented when the title was first investigated. He claimed that the pa at Otipa had belonged to Tutepaki of Nga Maihi. He stated that Ngati Hamua came to Otipa from Ohiwa and were initially shown kindness, 'but after a time they offended and were driven off. ,55 He explained that: Ng' Awa attacked Hamua at Otipa and took the pa in the early morning and at mid-day they fought a battle with another war party ofNg' Hamua who were on their way to assist the people of the pa and [Ngati Awa] gained a victory. The Hamuafled to Maungapohatu and for the most part remained there only a few coming at a time (since the .days of the Pakeha) and returning at intervals to Maungapohatu , .. ,56 Hamiora claimed that Ngati Hamua 'did not return until after Christianity and then not until they were invited by Tukehu. '57 47 Ibid, 8 February 1884, p 246 48 Ibid, pp 246-247 49 Ibid, P 247 50 Ibid, P 248 51 Ibid, P 247 52 Ibid 53 Ibid, P 248 54 Ibid 55 Ibid 56 Ibid, P 249 57 Ibid 59 The claim of Ngati Haka was dismissed by Hamiora on the grounds that their occupation of the portion of the Matahina block that they claimed was very recent. He told the Court that he had been a teacher during the early days of Christianity, and that in this capacity he had visited Ngati Haka at kainga located outside of the block. Hamiora asserted that Ngati Haka did not live on the Matahina block at this time, or in 1840 'when [the] Govt came'.58 Arguing further against Ngati Haka's claim, he told the Court that: I know there is a place named Okarea, it is a pa of Ng' Manawa which was taken by a taua of Ng' Awa .... This party went through this block (Matahina) by the old Maori track and not by the good road shown on the plan. Had the war party of Ng' Awa seen any of Ng' Haka and Patuheuheu within this block then they (Ng' Awa) would have attacked them.59 Repeating statements made when the title of the Matahina block was first investigated, Hamiora told the Court that the houses and cultivations ofNgati'Haka andPatuheuheu at the mouth of the Waikowhewhe Stream had only been there since they returned from Putere after the war. 60 He claimed that Motukura, within the portion claimed by Ngati Haka, was a pa belonging to Nga Maihi. Hamiora stated that during his father's time Motukurawas visited for the purpose of planting and hunting kakapo.61 The claim ofNgati Manawa was similarly dismissed by Tumutara, who claimed that the hapu's cultivations within the block had been planted 'since they returned from Putere (since the war). '62 After presenting this evidence, Hamiora was cross-examined by the counter-claimants.63 At the conclusion of this cross-examination, the Court heard evidence from two other Ngati Awa witnesses, Hiri Wetere and Hone Matenga, both of whom were briefly cross examined by some of the counter-claimants.64 Wetere and Matenga's statements were consistent with the evidence given by Tumutara, and in some cases elaborated on points that he had made. On 14 February, Timi Waata, who had assumed from Penetito Hawea the responsibility of conducting the Ngati Awa case, informed the .Court that he had .nofurther evidence to call.65 Those gathered in the Court were then informed that the .:A:ssessorwould visit the block to view the evidence of occupation. This action was stated to bein compliance with a request made several times by one of the claimants. Mehaka Tokopounamu asked that the Assessor visit the pa at Motukura, and the old whare which he claimed were located at Te Raepohatu. 66 The Court next opened on 18 February. Those who were present heard that the Assessor had returned from his visit to the block. The Court then adjourned to consider its judgement.67 58 Ibid, P 251 59 Ibid, 9 February 1884, p 252 60 Ibid 61 Ibid, 8 February 1884, p 250 62 Ibid, P 251 63 Ibid, 8 February 1884 and 11 February 1884, pp 252-256 64 Ibid, 12 February 1884 and 13 February 1884, pp 257-263 65 Ibid, 14 February 1884, p 263 66 Ibid, P 264 67 Ibid, 18 February 1884, p 264 60 5.6 The Court's Judgement The judgement of the rehearing of the Matahina block title investigation was delivered on 19 February. Although the bulk of the block was awarded to N gati A wa, small portions were also awarded to Ngati Rangitihi, Patuheuheu, and Ngati Hamua. In detail, the Court found thae8 (1) Ngati Rangitihi were entitled to an award of 1000 acres on the western side of the block between Te Morehu and Oteahunga; (2) Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka were entitled to an award of 2000 acres between the southern boundary and the Pokairoa and Mangaharakeke Streams; (3) Ngati Hamua were entitled to an award of 1500 acres 'in recognition ofthe gift by Tukehu'. This land was on the eastern side of the block, bounded by the Rangitaiki River and the Te Teko - Galatea Road. It was to include the Kaitangata cultivations; (4) Ngati Awa were entitled to the remainder ofthe block. The namesofHakaraia and his sons and daughters were to be included in the Court's order as owning individual interests in this land 'because the name of Hakaraia appears on the application before the Court as an admitted owner. ' This judgement was effectively a decision against the counter-claimants, who had claimed much larger portions of the Matahina block than the relatively small areas that were awarded. It was clearly the opinion of the Court that Ngati Awa presented the strongest case. In an evaluation of the evidence, it was stated in the judgement that Ngati Awa 'adduced evidence which was unshaken in Cross examination' .69 The decision to award small areas to the counter-claimants appears to have been a concession acknowledging that the evidence was conflicting, and that it was impossible to confidently establish a definitive account of the block's history. It was stated in the judgement that 'careful consideration' of the evidence showed there was 'a ground of claim based on occupation as set up by Rangitihi, Patuheuheu & Ng' Haka', but that there was 'doubt in the mind of the Court that this occupation was in the first instance based on Ancestral title. >70 The Assessor's visit to the Matahina block is not mentioned in the judgement,cand it therefore does not appear to have influenced the decision which was reached. 68 Ibid, 19 February 1884, p 267 69 Ibid, P 266 70 Ibid, P 267 61 6. The Division of the Matahina Block and the Taking of Matahina A6 for Survey and Other Costs 6.1 The Division of the Matahina Block Following the delivery of the Court's judgement, the Matahina block was partitioned into ten subdivisions. This division of the block is shown in Map S. The owners and area of each subdivision is presented in Table 1. Subdivision Area (acres) Owner Al 53,795 NgatiAwa A2 2,000 NgatiAwa A3 10,000 NgatiAwa A4 1 Ngati Awa (urupa) A5 3 Ngati Awa (urupa) A6 8,500 Ngati Awa (awarded to the Crown for survey charges) B 1,500 NgatiHamua C 1,000 Patuheuheu / Ngati Haka Cl 1,000 Patuheuheu / Ngati Haka D 1000 Ngati Rangitihi Table I : Subdivisions of Matahina Block Following the Rehearing of the Title Investigation The division of the 74,295 acres ofland awarded to Ngati Awa was decided by the owners following considerable discussion of the matter. On 2S February, Ngati Awa attended the Court to submit lists of owners. The Court adjourned soon after opening in order to allow for an agreement to be reached as to the division of the land.! Upon the reopening of the Court, orders were made for each of the chosen subdivisions. Some SOO individuals were named to be the owners of Matahina AI. 2 Matahina A2 was ordered in the names of 148 minors of Ngati Awa, and the alienation of this land was restricted.3 A similar restriction was ordered for Matahina A3, which was awarded to all of those named as owners of Matahina A1.4 Matahina A4 and AS, both burial grounds, were ordered in the names of Rangitukehu and Te Whaiti Paora.s The inclusion of Te Whaiti's name in the titles of Matahina A4 and AS appears to have been an act of respect acknowledging that Ngati Hamua buried their dead in these urupa. Matahina A4 and AS were respectively located at Otipa and at a place called Hauraki. During both the first title investigation and the rehearing, mention was made of the Ngati Hamua burial ground at Otipa. However, curiously, there was no reference to a burial ground at Hauraki. Both Matahina A4 and AS ! Ibid, 25 February 1884, p 315 2 Walzl, p, 34 3 Order of the Court, 25 February 1884, BOF 249/B (box 214): Matahina A2 (title, miscellaneous), WMLC, Rotorua; Whakatane Native Land Court minute book, 25 February 1884, p 315 4 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 2, 25 February 1884, p 315 S Orders of the Court, 25 February 1884, BOF 251 (box 219): Matahina A4-A6 (title, miscellaneous), WMLC, Rotorua 62 MapS Subdivisions of the Matahina Block (resulting from 1884 rehearing) N D , c o, 2 4 6 kilometres 63 ------1 ,, ______ were ordered to be 'absolutely inalienable'.6 Matahina A6 was awarded to the Crown in satisfaction of survey and other costS. 7 This taking is discussed below. On 22 February, lists of the owners of Matahina B, C, C1, and D were submitted to the Court.8 In the Court's order for Matahina B, the names of 58 individuals were registered as owners of the block. Orders of the Court for Matahina C and C 1 showed the blocks to respectively have 128 and 43 owners. The Court's order for Matahina D recorded that the block had 12 owners. 6.2 The Taking of Matahina A6 for Survey and Other Costs On 25 February, the Court heard an application by the Native Minister 'to ascertain and determine' the Crown's interest in the Matahinablock. The Court considered that the Crown had 'acquired an absolute estate of inheritance' in Matahina A6, and declared that this land, with an area of 8,500 acres, was 'the property ofHer Majesty.'9 . On 1 March, Mair wrote to Gill, reporting on the Court sitting at Whakatane: In both Matahina and Pokohu the fonner Judgments have been reversed, but all parties seem well satisfied with the present decision and I believe full justice has been done. I was instructed not to pay any further sums of money on these blocks: this made a settlement more difficult, as many important owners had never received a penny of the fonner advances and they naturally objected to a large slice of their own land being awarded to the Crown. However, I succeeded in obtaining awards to the Crown of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty acres of very fair land ....10 In addition to Matahina A6, the Crown had been awarded 1250 acres of the Pokohu block. Matahina A6 was awarded to the Crown in satisfaction of survey costs and advances totalling £899 4s 10d.1I The minute book does not record how it was decided that an area of 8,500 acres satisfied the Crown's interest. It may be that this area had been agreed upon by Mair and Ngati Awa. In terms ofland value, the Crown's award equated to about 2s 1d an acre. Walzl argues that this was slightly more than earlier estimates for land in this area. 12 Of the £899 4s 10d which was stated to be the Crown's interest in the Matahina block, £628 lOd was for the survey of Matahina 1 and 2. The remaining £271 4s was the amount which had been advanced to Ngati Awa in connection with the Matahina block. On 1 March, Mair sent Gill a schedule of these advances, the details of which are presented in Table 2. 6 Ibid 7 Orders of the Court, 25 February 1884, BOF 251 (box 219); Matahina A4-A6 (title, miscellaneous), WMLC, Rotorua 8 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 2,22 February 1884, p 284, pp 311-313, and p 315 9 Order of the Court, 25 February 1884, BOF 251 (box 219): Matahina A4-A6 (title, miscellaneous), WMLC, Rotorua 10 Mair to Gill, 1 March 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington II Schedule of Costs, 1 March 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 12 Walzl, p 51 64 Date Name Amount Advanced 12 December 1873 Penetito Hawea £30 15 May 1878 Hamiora Tumutara £15 8 January 1878 Ngati Awa (food supplied during £10 Native Land Court sitting at Matata) 9 September 1879 Rangitukehu £5 12 September 1879 Hamiora Tumutara £159s 10 October 1879 Penetito Hawea £3 15s 10 October 1879 Rangitukehu and others £150 10 October 1879 Rangitukehu £17 18 October 1879 Penetito Hawea £5 23 October 1881 Rangitukehu £20 total £271 4s Table 2: Advances to Ngati Awa for Matahina Block, 1873-1881 Gardiner argues that the Crown overcharged Ngati Awa for the survey of the Matahina block, and consequently was awarded an area of land greater than it otherwise would have been entitled. Evidence for this assertion is found in a letter Mair wrote to Paul Sheridan, the new Under-Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department. \3 This letter,. written in June 1886, concerned a request made by Hamiora Tumutara for the refund of £15 he had been paid for assisting the survey, which had been mistakenly recorded as an advance on the block. Mair atguedthat the sum should be refunded to Tumutara. He told Sheridan that all survey charges had been recovered, and explained that 'the natives paid the survey lien - £400 odd, whereas the actual cost was only about £200.'14 Mair noted that he was 'speaking from memory as to amounts.' Commenting on Mair's letter, Sheridan noted that 'Capt Mair's statement is correct.'15 Instructions were given for £15 to be refunded to Tumutara Hamiora. 16 It seems clear from this evidence that Ngati Awa were charged an excessive amount for the survey of the Matahina block, more than was required to cover the actual cost of the survey .. This overcharging, which' allowed the Crown to secure a larger area of the block when its interest was defined, appears to have been employed' to 'compensate for the land purchase officers' failure to purchase from NgatiAwaa.sizeable:portion of the Matahina block. Also, the overcharging was necessary to recover money which the Land Purchase Department lost during the process of advancing money for the purchase of the block. It was noted by Sheridan that, in connection to the Matahina block, the Land Purchase Department 'lost a good deal of money ... owing to reckless payments of one kind or another. m In March 1884, Mair provided Gill with schedule of unrecovered advances which amounted to £175 11 s 6d; 18 The schedule details, for example, that £50 was paid by .. \3 Mair to Sheridan, 28 May 1886, MA-MLP 1 1886/225, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 14 Ibid 15 Sheridan to Lewis, 30 June 1886, on file cover ofMA-MLP 1 1886/225, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 16 Lewis to Davies, 3 July 1886, on file cover ofMA-MLP 1 1886/225, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 17 Sheridan to Lewis, 30 June 1886, on file cover ofMA-MLP 1 1886/225, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 18 Schedule of Costs, 1 March 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 65 Donald McLean on 22 March 1879 to Te Pukenui of Te Urewera. Remarking on this payment, Mair noted that, 'These natives have no interest whatever.' 19 Mair's schedule of unrecovered advances detailed that £61 had been received by members of Patuheuheu between 1873 and 1879. Concerned that the Crown would make an application to have these advances recovered from Matahina C and Cl, Wi Patene Tarahanga, Mehaka Tokopounamu, Te Whaiti Paora, and 'all Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka' wrote to Mair soon after the rehearing: This is our word to you respecting the Government advances on Matahina and which were paid to Wi Patene and Mehaka Tokopounamu, they received £54. Te Whaiti Paora received £7 and the total amount is sixty one pound. Now we have carefully considered this matter and as the Court only awarded us a very small portion of Matahina, we ask that we may be allowed to refund this sum.20 Mair sent this letter to Gill. He explained that: The writers ... desire to refund the advances [of] £61 and I think they should be allowed to do so as they only obtained 2,000 acres and a great many minors are included in the certificate. The land is of no special value. Had the Court been asked to cut off a portion in payment ofGovt advances, half the block would have been absorbed. 21 Responding to this letter,· Mair telegraphed Gill on 5 June 1884, and instructed him to recover £61 from Patuheuheu.22 On6 June 1884, Pore Moturou wrote to Mair on behalf of all Ngati Awa, enquiring if the proclamation over the Matahina and Pokohu blocks had been removed. Notification that the government had entered into negotiations for the 'Pokohu block' had been given in April 1878, some six years earlier. While it remained in force, the proclamation made it illegal for other parties to negotiate for the purchase of the land. Moturou stated that its removal was 'what we arranged at Whakatane when the 8,500 acres was given to the Govemor.'23 The proclamation had been removed on 1 May 1884.24 On 7 August 1884, Matahina A6 was declared to be wasteland of the Crown. 2S 6.3 Summary When the Matahina block was subdivided following the Court's judgement, the Crown was awarded 8500 acres of the Ngati Awa portion of the block. The Crown received this land in satisfaction of survey costs and advances to Ngati Awa totalling £899 4s lOd. The survey costs were detailed to be £628 10d. However, there is· evidence to· suggest that this . figure was deliberately exaggerated to enable the Crown to acquire a larger area of land. 19 Ibid 20 Tarahanga and others to Mair, 23 February 1884,MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 21 Mair to Gill, 1 March 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 22 Gill to Mair, 5 June 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/69, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 23 Moturou to Mair, 6 June 1884, MA-MLP 1 1884/148, found in MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 24 Walzl, p 39 2S Lands Declared to be Waste Lands of the Crown, 7 August 1884, New Zealand Gazette, 1884, no 89, p 1214 66 This appears to have been done to compensate for the failure to purchase a sizeable area of the block, and also to recover in land the money which had been advanced to individuals who were found to have no interest in the block. 67 7. Survey Charging Orders and the Partition of Matahina AI, 1891 7.1 The Survey of the Matahina Block Subdivisions, 1885 In 1885, the Matahina block was surveyed. This survey appears to have been requested by at least some of the block's owners. The survey was organised by Henry Mitchell, and his instructions were carried out by a Mr Brigham.) A detailed examination of the issues surrounding this survey is presented in the following section. 7.2 The Ordering of Survey Charging Orders, 1891 On 31 January 1891, somesixyears after the 1885 survey, the Court heard ,an application by Mitchell for survey costs to be charged against each of the Matahina subdivisions, with the exception of Matahina At and A6. Mitchell produced certificates provided by the Chief Surveyor which detailed the amounts owed. Accordingly, the Court ordered the following charges against each of the subdivisions:2 Subdivision ChaI"ge A2 £63 16s 8d A3 £252 3s 4d A4 £6 Os Od A5 £6 Os Od B £62 lOs Od C £54 Os Od C1 £54 Os Od D £62 lOs Od Table 3: Survey Costs Charged Against Subdivisions of the Matahina Block, 1891 The minute book does not record how many owners were present when Mitchell's application was heard. An objection was raised by one of the owners, Te 7.3 The Partition of Matahina AI, 1891 On 6 February 1891, the Court heard an application for the partition of Matahlna At. Penetito Hawea told the Court that 'All N' Awa have agreed that a piece of this portion ) Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 47, 11 August 1903, P 133 2 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 4, 30 January 1891, pp 203-204 3 Ibid, p 204 68 ------) Map 6 Partitions of Matahina Al N A3 MATAHINA AID o MATAHINA AlB o 2 4 6 kilometres 69 should be cut off to enable them to clear the land of debt.,4 Penetito explained that Ngati Awa had 'received money on behalf of the land from a Company.'5 He described the boundaries of an area of land within Matahina Al containing 19,000 acres, and told the Court that it had been arranged that this land 'should be handed to Mr Mitchell for the Company.'6 Hawea asserted that 'the whole tribe has agreed to this.'7 Penetito further requested that an additional area of 6000 acres be partitioned from Matahina AI. This land, which Penetito asked to be cut out immediately north of the other partition, was to defray the survey charges on Matahina A2, A3 and A4. The charges against these blocks amounted to £322. In recovering this sum, Mitchell therefore acquired the 6,000 acres at the value of about Is Id an acre. Penetito told the Court that the partition would 'give us the balance of our land unencumbered', and claimed that the proposal had been 'arranged by the whole tribe.'8 Herequested that one order cover both of the areas to be cut off, and asked that no further survey charges be paid by Ngati Awa.9 Henry Mitchell followed Penetito, and told the Court: I am asking as agent for the Company referred to. I propose to put James Wilson in the order (one of the syndicate in question) and myself as well, I having a beneficial interest in the land, as well as a survey lien on it. I am interested in the land. [1] Ask that the orders in respect of survey liens made in my favour the other day in Matahina A No 2, A No 3, and A No 4 be cancelled. I agree to free the natives of all charges for the partitions made today, the Company and I undertaking to defray the survey charges.1o There were no objections to the proposals. The Court made an order in favour of Henry Mitchell and James Wilson for the 25,000 acres which were to be cut from Matahina AI. This land was to be called Matahina AlB. The remainder of Matahlna AI, an area of 28,795 acres, was to be called Matahina Ale. This was awarded to those named in the original list for Matahina Al.1I No block was created at this time with the name Matahina AlA. These orders were amended on 23 February, following a request by Mitchell, who asked that two orders be made separating the 25,000 acres that had been partitioned from Matahina A 1. Mitchell requested that he and Edwin Hesketh be named the owners of 19,000 acres, and that the remaining 6,000 acres be in his name solely. The Court agreed to this request, and these areas of land were respectively named Matahina AlB and Matahina AlC. The remaining land, belonging to some 500 Ngati Awa, was to be known as Matahina AlD.12 4 Ibid, 6 February 1891, p 253 Ibid 6 Ibid, P 254 Ibid Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Ibid, pp 254-255 11 Ibid, P 255 12 Ibid, 23 February 1891, pp 319-321 70 7.4 Negotiations for the Private Purchase of the Matahina Block, 1882-1883 The payments from 'a Company', which resulted in 19,000 acres being partitioned from Matahina Al in 1891, were made in the early 1880s. Walzl argues that private interests negotiated for the purchase of the Matahina block between February 1882, when notification was given that there would not be a rehearing, and September 1883, when the provisions of the Special Powers and Contract Act were announced. \3 During this period, the Crown's interest was undefined, and the land remained under proclamation, prohibiting private purchasers from negotiating for the land. Walzl considers that after offering land to the Crown without result, Ngati Awa wished to have the proclamation lifted so that they could legitimately negotiate with private purchasers. 14 It seems that Ngati Awa attempted to achieve this by initially offering to refund their debt to the Crown, and after this approach failed, by requesting that the Crown cut out its interest. On 2 April 1888, HM Jervis wrote to the Native Minister, informing him of the private interests which had been established in both the Matahina and Pokohu blocks: Five years ago seven capitalists of Sydney ascertaining that Blocks Matahina Nos 1& 2 and Pokohu containing for sale about 100,000 acres were in perfect order for dealing with the native owners, gave directions to their Auckland agent (Mr CH Osmond) to buy, by means of your Licensed Interpreter Messrs H Mitchell, H Burt and Preece, with the views of stocking the lands in the manner of a neighbouring stock rearer.ls Jervis continued by stating that 'full and repeated' meetings had been held with Ngati Awa at Te Teko. He claimed that 'a perfect understanding' had been reached with regard to the price, following which 360 signatures were collected and monies paid. Jervis alleged that payments of about £8000 had been made up until the announcement of the rehearing. He stated that purchase operations ceased following notification of the rehearing, and explained that matters had been 'complicated by subsequent enactments and regulations in Native Land Matters.'I6 Walzl considers that this is a reference to the Native Lands Administration Act 1886, which disallowed the purchase of Maori land by private interests. 17 Jervis explained to the Native Minister that he understood that the present government was prepared to review the Crown's pre-emption policy, and asked if any action could be taken to enable the completion of the purchase of the Matahina and Pokohu blocks. Accompanying Jervis' letter, was one that Mitchell had written to Jervis on 13 February 1888. In this letter, Mitchell stated that purchase operations by private interests began after notification of the dismissal of the application. for a rehearing: 'Then, and not till then, operations for purchase from the Native owners commenced and the majority of same signed deeds of conveyance receiving large sums of money . . . .' \8 Mitchell stated 13 Walzl, p 36 14 Walzl, pp 49-50 IS Jervis to Native Minister, 2 Apri11888, MA-MLP 1 1888/89, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 36 16 Ibid 17 Walzl, p 39 18 Mitchell to Jervis, 13 February 1888, MA-MLP 1 1888/89, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 37 71 that following the rehearing the owners were willing to complete the purchase and be paid the remaining purchase money. However, he claimed that the Australian syndicate did not wish to proceed with the sale, having become wary of the purchase due to the delays. Also, the result of the rehearing determined that the deed of purchase needed to be redrawn, and the Native Land Administration Act 1886 ended the private purchasing of Maori land. Mitchell explained to Jervis that the owners were still willing to proceed with the sale: The great bulk of the owners originally established as such are also included in the lists of the second Court and those who signed the deed are quite disposed (or were until lately at all events) to execute fmal deeds of sale on payment to them of the balances due to them or they would probably awee to cut off lands of sufficient area to cover the advances they have already received. Mitchell considered that progress could be achieved if the Court was empowered to deal with the question. Considering Jervis' letter, the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, TW Lewis, commented to the Native Minister that: 'So far as the dept is aware the alleged purchasers had no legal rights in the land prior to the Govt proclamation which precluded dealings by private individuals. ,20 The Native Minister instructed Lewis to inform Jervis that the government could not interfere.21 The JDinute book record of the 1891 hearing does not indicate that the proceedings took place under special legislation. Section 4 of the Native Land Act 1888 provided that Maori could alienate their land as they saw fit, subject to the provisions of the Native Land Frauds Prevention Acts. The Native Land Frauds Prevention Acts Amendment Act 1889 prohibited dealings with Maori land with more that 20 owners, except in cases where the block was less than 5000 acres and its title had been issued prior to the passage of the Native Land Frauds Prevention Acts Amendment Act 1888. Given this legislation, it appears that there were no legal grounds upon which the interests of the private purchasers were partitioned from the Matahina block in 1891. However, the illegality of the situation may have been circumvented by the fact that Ngati A wa were the applicants for partition, not the private purchasers. If the 19,000 acres that were partitioned from Matahina Al for 'the Company' was in consideration of £8000, the amount mentioned in Jervis' letter, this means that the Ngati A wa owners received 8s 10d an acre. This seems very generous, given that at the same ,. time Mitchell acquired 6000 acres for survey costs calculated on a value of approximately Is Id an acre. However, the 1891 partition was probably a negotiated settlement, one in which that the Ngati Awa owners may have had the upper-hand. Owing to the illegality of the situation, which appears to have required that the application for partition be made by the owners, N gati Awa may have been able secure a settlement that was more favourable than otherwise would have been possible. 19 Ibid 20 Lewis to Native Minister, 27 April 1888, MA-MLP 1 1888/89, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 40 21 Native Minister to Lewis, 28 April 1888, MA-MLP 1 1888/89, NA Wellington, cited in Walzl, p 40 72 7.5 Summary A survey of the subdivisions of the Matahina block was organised by Henry Mitchell in 1885. In January 1891, Mitchell secured survey charging orders against several of the subdivisions. Following this, Matahina Al was partitioned upon application by Ngati Awa. An area of 6000 acres was awarded to Mitchell in order to clear the Ngati Awa subdivisions of debt. This land was to be know as Matahina Al C. At the same time, a further 19,000 acres was partitioned in favour of Mitchell and another individual, both apparently representing an Australian syndicate. This land was to be known as Matahina AlB. It appears that Ngati Awa received payments for land from the syndicate in the period between the title investigation and the rehearing. The portion of Matahina A I which remained in Ngati Awa ownership, an area of 28,795 acres, was to be known as Matahina AID. 73 / I 8. The Taking of Land for Survey Charges from Matahina B, C, Cl, and D, 1907 8.1 The Crown's Acquisition of Mitchell's Survey Charges In March 1894, Henry Mitchell was declared bankrupt in the Auckland Supreme Court. l In his Crown Law Office report on the taking of land for survey charges in 1907, John Battersby details that, as a consequence of Mitchell's bankruptcy, all of the money which was owed to Mitchell for surveys became the property of his official assignee, John Lawson. 2 In October 1896, mortgages were lodged against the blocks, and the official assignee's solicitor, ET Dufaur, wrote to the Surveyor General, requesting that the government takeover the survey liens. 3 This proposal was rejected by the Surveyor General, and on 8 December 1897, the blocks were advertised to be sold. Concerned about the proposed sale, the Department of Lands and Survey sought the opinion of the Solicitor General, who considered that the intended sale would be restrained by the Supreme Court.4 However, Dufaur proceeded with the proposed sale, and in response the Lands and Survey Department secured a caveat against the sale by paying the official assignee money for liens, interest, and registration fees. s Following this, the sale was merely postponed by . Dufaur until the 13 January 1898. It was not until the government had paid other expenses, such as advertising and legal costs, that the prospect of the sale of the land was finally averted.6 Battersby states that, in preventing the sale, 'the Crown had incurred considerable costs over and above the initial survey liens'.7 8.2 The Cutting Out of the Crown's Interest, 1907 On 4 July 1907, notification was given in the New Zealand Gazette that a sitting of the Native Land Court would be held at Whakatane. 8 Among the matters to be heard were several applications made by the Chief Surveyor of Auckland Land District under section 65 of the Native Land Court Act 1894. It was stated that, for each application, 'a defined portion of land may be vested in applicant, in lieu of survey costs'.9 Among the applications, were four concerning Matahina B, C, C1,and D. The following survey costs were given for the these blocks: MatahinaB £8213s 9d MatahinaC £67 18s 3d MatahinaCI £67 18s 3d MatahinaD £76 8s 3d 1 Bankruptcy Notice, 14 March 1894, New Zealand Gazette, 1894, no 23, p 469 2 John Battersby, 'Matahina C and Cl: Issues Related to the Survey of the Blocks', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H9), p 9 Ibid 4 Ibid, p 10 5 Ibid Ibid, P 11 7 Ibid Notice of Sitting of the Native Land Court at Whakatane, 22 June 1907, New Zealand Gazette, 1907, no 58, pp 2019-2021 9 Ibid 74 These costs are significantly greater than the actual charges which were ordered against the blocks in 1891. Added to the original charges were·registration fees, and expenses incurred while the mortgages were held by Mitchell's official assignee. This is shown in the following account of costs for both Matahina C and Matahina Cl:1O Lien £54 Os Od Order and registration fee £2 5s 1d Registration of transfer 5s Od Crown Solicitor's fee lOs 8d Dufaur's costs £10 12s 10d Crown Solicitor's fee 4s 8d Total £6718s 3d The applications were heard by the Court on 27 September, with Judge Mair presiding. They were presented by a Mr Ballantine, who told the Court that: I have been here for several days and have invited the owners to pay up for the charging. orders in these cases, but they have not done so, and I must now ask the Court to cut out of each block a sufficient area in each case to pay the survey charges etc. I I Ballantine provided the following application details for each of the Matahina blocks: 12 block MatahinaB MatahinaC MatahinaCl MatahinaD survey charge £8213s 9d £67 18s 3d £67 18s 3d £76 8s 3d interest £15 12s 6d £13 lOs Od £13 lOs Od £15 12s 6d cost of cutting out required area £30 Os Od £30 Os Od £30 Os Od --_ ...... _---- total sum to be recovered £128 6s 3d £111 8s 3d £111 8s 3d £92 Os 9d valuation 5s an acre 3s an acre 3s an acre 2s an acre required area 513 acres 667 acres 667 acres 920 acres Table 4: Crown's Application Details for Recovery of Survey Costs from Matahina Blocks There were no objections to any of these applications, and the Court therefore made orders accordingly. It was stated that these orders were to remain in abeyance until the conclusion of the Court's sitting in Whakatane and Opotiki. It is noted in the minute book that 'the owners are not clear about the charges in some instances and hope to be able to meet some of the cases by paying Up.'13 It appears that none of the owners came forward with payments, and the Court's orders therefore took effect. The total amount which was in each case recovered from Matahina B, C, Cl, and D, was significantly greater than the survey costs which had been advertised in the New Zealand Gazette. It was not stated why the Crown did not want to recover the cost of cutting out the required area of Matahina D. A possible explanation is that the expense of this would have meant that the Crown would have acquired the whole of the block, which may have been considered a result that was too severe. As it was, the Ngati Rangitihi owners were left with just 80 acres of their original award. 10 Anam to Under Secretary, Native Department, 21 January 1925, cited in Tama Nikora, 'Matahina C & C No.1 Blocks', May 1995 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc F2), 40 II Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 9, 27 September 1907, p 177 12 Ibid, pp 177-178 13 Ibid, P 178 75 Map 7 Land Taken by Crown for Survey Costs, 1907 • Taken by Crown N A6 MATAHINA C SOUTH o 2 4 6 kilometres 76 8.3 Appeal by the Owners of Matahina D, 1909 In March 1909, an appeal against the Crown's taking of land from Matahina D was heard at a sitting of the Appellate Court at Maketu. The applicant was Hemana Mokonuiarangi. The grounds for the application were stated to be: (1) that the appellants were absent when the case was heard; (2) that the appellants' successors had not been appointed; and (3) that the value of two shillings an acre was too small. I4 When the appeal was presented, however, Hemana addressed only the issue of the land's value. He stated that a fresh valuation was required, and claimed that there was totara on the block. Hemana acknowledged that the timber was not accessible, but claimed that one day it might be. He considered that the open land was worth 2 shillings an acre, and the forest £1 an acre. Mikaere Heretaunga spoke after Hemana. He told the Court that he was the only original owner alive, and stated that he had not visited the land since the. boundaries had been defmed. From an examination of the plan, Mikaere thought that about half of Matahina D was in forest. The plan of the 1885 survey does indeed suggest that approximately half of the block was forested. Mikaere asserted that two shillings was too little for the open land, which he claimed was' good farm land.' 15 Mr Ballantine responded on behalf of the Crown. He explained that two shillings an acre was the Valuation Department estimate, and that this was 'all I had to go on.'16 Ballantine called before the Court a Mr Buckworth, the Whakatane County Council's valuer. Buckworth told the Court that he had never visited Matahina D, but knew the Matahina area 'generally'. He described Matahina D to be 'very inaccessible', and explained that there were no roads to the land. The bush on the block was described by Buckworth to be 'mixed', and he thought there was 'scattered' totara. He asserted that Matahina D was 'practically valueless.'17 During cross-examination by Hemana, Buckworth stated that he thought· he had valued some of the land at one shilling an acre. He did not consider that anybody would pay two shillings an acre for the timbered land. IS Judgement of the appeal was given on 16 March. The decision of the Native Land Court was affirmed. It was stated that Hemana had provided 'no evidence' to support his assertion that the valUation had been too low. The statements made by Buckworth were considered to be authoritative, demanding that the Court's decision be afftrmed. 19 In January 1912, an application was made by the Crown to summon a meeting of the owners of Matahina D2 to consider an offer to sell the block to the Crown for £40, or 10 shillings an acre. 20 This offer was based on valuations that had been carried out by officers of the Valuation Department. As about half of Matahina D2 was forested, the price offered for this land in 1912 can be seen as an accurate indication of the value of the remaining area of the Matahina D block. The Crown's offer to purchase Matahina D2 for 14 President's Appellate Court minute book 10, 8 March 1909, p 108 15 Ibid 16 Ibid, p lO9 17 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 Auckland District Appellate Court minute book 7, 16 March 1909, p 360 20 Application to Summon Meetings of Owners, 10 January 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 77 10 shillings an acre strongly suggests that an improperly low value was ascribed to Matahlna D when 920 acres of the block was acquired for survey costs. It seems unlikely that the value of this land could have increased by 500 percent in the five years between 1907 and 1912. In 1912, at the same time that the Crown applied to summon a meeting of the owners of Matahina D2, a similar application was made for Matahina B2.21 The application incorrectly stated that Matahina B2 had an area of 1500 acres. This had been the size of the former Matahina B block, which officers of the Valuation Department had valued in order to determine the Crown's offer. The application detailed that the owners of Matahina B2 would be offered £598 for the 1500 acres. This equates to a value of just under eight shillings an acre, and is significantly greater than the valuation of five shillings an acre which was used to calculate the 513 acres taken from Matahina B by the Crown. 8.4 Discussion The 1907 taking of land in lieu of survey costs from Matahina B, C, C 1, and D is clearly an important issue in the history of the Matahina block. The matter is addressed in three reports and one submission dealing· with Matahina C and C 1 blocks. In addition to Battersby's report for the Crown Law Office, reports have been written on the matter by: TR Nikora, for the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, and Marian Porima, for Te Runanganui 0 Te Ika Whenua.22 Cathy Ertel has presented a submission on the subject for Te Runanganui 0 Te Ika Whenua.23 Four key questions are addressed in this research: (1) Who requested and authorised the 1885 survey? Nikora and Porima argue that the survey was requested by Ngati Awa, and that Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu were in no way party to the survey. Nikora and Porima base this argument on information found in a file generated by a petition that was lodged without result in 1947.24 In this file, there is a three page summary of the original survey file, Lands and Survey file 1095, which appears to have been either lost or destroyed.2s The composite document contains a transcription of a telegraph from the surveyor, Mitchell, to the Surveyor-General, in which Mitchell states that a survey of the subdivisions was requested by Ngati Awa chiefs. The composite document also contains details· of a telegraph from Rangitukehu, dated 9 October 1884, in which he inquires as to when the survey would be carried out. If the survey was requested by Ngati Awa, as Nikora and Porima argue, there is evidence to suggest that some of the iwi were strongly opposed to the survey. An objection was made 21 Application to Summon Meetings of Owners, 10 January 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 22 TR Nikora, 'Matahina C & CNo.1 Blocks', May 1995 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc F2); Marian Porima, 'Matahina C & Cl and Patuheuheu & Ngati Haka', 1994 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc D4) 23 Kathy L Ertel, 'Opening Submission of counsel for Te Runanganui 0 Te Ika Whenua Incorporated Society', February 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, document D9) 24 Petition of Rikiriki Tokopounamu and others, MA 1 5/13/211, Petition No 5911947, NA Wellington 2S This important file, Lands and Survey file 1095, appears to have been destroyed. Efforts made during the course of preparing this report have failed to locate it. 78 to the survey at the time it was carried out in September of 1884. This objection was made in a letter sent to Wi Pere, member of the House of Representatives, by Hamiora Tumutara Pio and others, who claimed to represent all ofNgati Awa. In this letter, which is not cited in any of the existing research, the correspondents stated that: if we are asked to pay for the survey of Matahina and Te Pokohu we will not pay for it. We did [not] make the application to have it done, nor did the tribe, nor were any of us a party to having the survey made ... 26 The letter is a translation from the originaL The omission of the word 'not' from the letter may have been a mistake in the translation, or else a grammatical error in the original letter. Commenting on this letter, Gill told Pere that, 'The surveys were necessary to carry out the orders of the NL Court. ,27 Nikora argues that there was no logical reason for Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka to have requested the costly title survey of the Matahina C blocks, given that this land was 'relatively unproductive country of drought prone ash soils . . . where parts of it was simply used for pig hunting. ,28 In addition to what Nikora asserts, it should be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that after acquiring the Matahina C blocks Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka ever attempted to sell them. Without having this intention, it would indeed have been illogical for Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka to have requested that the land be surveyed. Battersby contests the arguments put forward by Nikora and Porima. He asserts that the composite document in the file of the 1947 petition does not conclusively show that Ngati Awa requested the survey without any involvement from Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka. Battersby argues that the document is unreliable because it is merely a summary of the original file, and there is no way of knowing what is omitted from that fIle. 29 Battersby does not present evidence to show that Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka were involved with the survey, but suggests that it was possible, given that certain connections appear to have existed between them and Ngati Awa. 30 Battersby details thatthree of the 'owners of the Matahina C blocks had interests in other Matahina blocks. 'One ofthese individuals was Te Whaiti Paora, who jointly owned with Rangitukehu the two Ngati Awaiburial grounds, Matahina A4 and Matahina AS. Battersby notes that Te Whaiti was in Court when the charging orders were made against the Matahina blocks in 1891.31 Although Te Whaiti protested against the boundaries of Matahina B, he did not raise any objections to the survey charges. 26 Pio to Pere, 16 September 1884, MA-MLP 1 1888/50, NA Wellington 27 Gill to Pere, undated, on ibid 28 Nikora, p 12 29 Battersby, p 2 30 Ibid, P 8 31 Ibid 79 ------I ___ ~ ______ (2) Did Mitchell act with integrity? Nikora asserts that Mitchell 'strongly advocated' the survey of the Matahina block because 'he had a vested interest in the task' owing to the remuneration he would receive from the work, and the interest he had in a company which was desirous of acquiring Matahina lands.32 Ertel argues that Mitchell had 'little to no motivation to ensure that correct people were requesting surveys'.33 In response, Battersby rather unconvincingly contends that an unsigned declaration by Mitchell on the master plan shows 'a degree of diligence on the part of Mitchell in the conduct of his duties, an awareness of who he was acting for, and an understanding of the purpose of his instructions. ,34 Damage to the plan has made the name of the applicant unreadable. (3) Were the owners informed of the Crown's intention to take the land? Nikora and Porima assert that the owners cannot have been given adequate.warning of the intention to take the land, given that several blocks of land were involved, and that these blocks had different owners with different tribal affiliation. 35 Nikora also draws attention to the economic stress that Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka were experiencing at the time as a consequence of a 1905 Supreme Court case concerning Waiohau 1B.36 He contends that even if the owners of the Matahina C blocks had been aware of the Crown's intention to take land, they would not have been able to pay the surveys charges to have prevented this from happening. Battersby contests the arguments of Nikora and Porlma by pointing to the presence of Ballantine, who put the Crown's case before the Court, and who claimed to have spoken to some of the owners in an attempt to settle the charging orders. (4) Was the area of land taken calculated on the basis of a fair valuation? While it seems evident that the valuations used to calculate the land taken from Matahina B and D did not properly reflect the market value of these blocks, it is unclear whether an appropriate valuation was used for the area:taken from Matahina C and CL In 1912, the Crown made no offer to purchase the portions of these blocks which it, had not already acquired, and a valuation of Matahina C and C 1 was therefore not carried out at this time. Consequently, discussion of the valuation used to calculate the 1907 taking of land from these blocks focuses largely on comparing this valuation with that of surrounding blocks. Nikora argues that the valuation of Matahina C and Matahina C1 at 3s an acre did not reflect the block's true market value. He details that Waiohau 1B South (3500 acres) and Waiohau 1B North (3500 acres), which were located across the Rangitaiki River from the Matahina C blocks, were in 1907 respectively sold for lIs 5d an acre and 12s an acre. 37 Battersby notes that the actual figure used to calculate the land taken was 3s 4d, a little 32 Nikora, p 12 33 Ertel, p 18 34 Battersby, p 6 35 Nikora, pp 6-7; Porima, p 17 36 Nikora, pp 13-14 37 Ibid, P 11 80 ------~ ~ I over the government valuation. 38 Drawing on a wider range of sources than Nikora, Battersby attempts to show that this figure cannot be considered unfair. For example, Battersby examines an offer made in 1894 to sell Matahina AlB to the Crown. The Chief Surveyor described this land as 'almost useless', and advised that not more than 1s 6d an acre should be paid for the block, which adjoined the Matahina C blocks. 39 The valuations cited by both Battersby and Nikora are not particularly useful in establishing whether or not the valuation of 3s an acre was fair. In order to draw conclusions about the value of a particular block from the valuations of surrounding blocks, it is necessary that a comparison is made of the physical characteristics of the blocks in question. It is clear that the subdivisions of the Matahina block were considered to be of different value, presumably owing to differences in access, soil fertility, and quantities of standing timber. In 1907, while the value of the Matahina C blocks was given to be 3s an acre, Matahina B was valued at 5s an acre, and Matahina D at just 2s an acre. Battersby details that in 1910 an assessment by the district valuer of a valuation of the Matahina blocks AID, A3, B, and D gave a value of Is 6d for open country, lOs an acre for bush land, and £1 an acre for land carrying millable timber.40 Battersby provides no details of the characteristics of the Matahina C blocks, and it is therefore difficult to have confidence in his conclusion that the 1907 government valuation of the Matahina C blocks 'seems a standard value comparable to that of surrounding land at the time.'41 Ertel makes an important point in asserting that the 'system employed to obtain a value did not take into account the value, physically and spiritually to Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka. ,42 8.5 Summary It is unlikely that further research will uncover any new evidence relating to the 1907 taking of land for survey costs from Matahina B, C, C1, and D. The most important file concerning the issue, that which deals with the 1885 survey, appears to have been either lost beyond recovery, or destroyed. Unfortunately, there are contradictions in the available evidence, and it is also decidedly 'thin', making it difficult to establish well substantiated conclusions about any of the aspects of the 1907 taking of land. However,.it is possible to present a version of events from the available evidence, albeit one that contains a certain amount of speculation and is somewhat incomplete. It seems evident that the Ngati Awa chief Rangitukehu was involved in requesting the 1885 survey of the Matahina block. However, the extent to which the request for the survey was endorsed by the whole of Ngati Awa is unclear. It is apparent that a number of the iwi opposed the survey. The surveyor, Mitchell, who clearly had an interest in seeing that the block was surveyed, may have accepted an application by Rangitukehu without establishing the extent to which other Ngati Awa wished to have the block surveyed. However, Rangitukehu was the recognised leader of Ngati Awa, and thus Mitchell might have thought it unnecessary to gauge whether other Ngati Awa approved. It is possible that Rangitukehu may have 38 Battersby, p 14 39 Ibid, P 12 40 Ibid, p 13 41 Ibid, P 14 42 Ertel, p 21 81 requested a survey only of the Ngati Awa subdivisions of the Matahina block. If this was the case, Mitchell still would have had to have surveyed the portions awarded to the non Ngati Awa because of shared boundaries. Therefore, he might have thought it legitimate to charge the non Ngati Awa for some of the cost of the survey. Battersby's argument that Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka may have been party to the survey because of supposed connections with Ngati Awa is not wholly convincing. The fact that three of the owners of the Matahina C blocks also had interests in the portions awarded to Ngati Awa speaks only of the close association of a few owners. However, as Battersby argues, it is impossible to conclusively assert that Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka were not involved in the 1885 survey. The outspoken Te Whaiti Paora did not object to the survey charges made against Matahina B or the Matahina C blocks when he was present in Court at the time the charges were ordered in 1891. Similarly, when the owners of Matahina D contested the 1907 taking ofland in the Appellate Court, their complaint was of an unfair valuation, not that they had never requested the survey .. The matter of whether or not the owners were given adequate warning of the Crown's intention to take land. in 1907 is problematic because the available evidence on the issue is insubstantial. The Crown issued the statutory gazette notices, and the Crown's representative at the Court hearing claimed to have contacted the owners of the affected blocks. None of the available evidence sheds light on the number of owners who were contacted, or whether those spoken to were informed of the exact areas of land which the Crown intended to take. The question of the fairness of the valuations used to calculate the areas of land taken in 1907 is clear with regard to Matahina Band D. Both of these blocks appear to have been ascribed values which did not properly reflect their market worth. The fairness of the valuation used to calculate the land which was taken from Matahina C and C 1 is difficult to determine. Without specific details of the physical characteristics of Matahina C and C 1, it is unclear to what extent the valuations that Battersby and Nikora use for comparison are useful. 82 9. Crown's Attempted Purchase of Matahina A1D, A2, A3, and D2, 1912 9.1 The Native Land Act 1909 Under section 207 of the Native Land Act 1909 all existing restrictions on alienation were removed: All prohibitions on the alienation of land by a Native, or on the alienation of Native Land, which before the commencement of this Act have been imposed by any Crown grant, certificate of title, order of the Native Land Court, or other instrument of title, or by any Act, are hereby removed, and shall, with the commencement of this Act, be of no force or effect' In the Matahina block, the removal of restrictions on alienation meant that Matahina A2 and A3 were able to sold. Section 217 of the Native Land Act 1909 brought the process of alienation of Maori land under the scrutiny of Maori Land Boards. No alienation· could be effected without it· being conflrmed by the district Maori Land Board.2 In granting confirmation, Boards were to ensure that certain criteria had been met. These criteria were detailed in section 220: (a.) That the instrument of alienation has been duly executed in the manner required by this Part of the Act: (b.) That the alienation is not contrary to equity or good faith, or to the interests of the Natives alienating: . (c.) That no native will by reason of this Act become landless within the meaning of this Act: (d.)That the consideration (if any) for the alienation is adequate: (e.) That in the case of an alienation by way of sale the purchase-money has been either paid or sufficiently secured: (f.) That no person acquiring any interest under the alienation is prohibited from acquiring that interest by virtue of the Provisions of Part XII of this Act relating to limitation of area: (g.) That the alienation is not in breach of any trust to which the land is subject: (h.) That the alienation is not otherwise prohibited by law:3 Under section 223, 'adequate' payment was to be estimated 'by reference' to a valuation carried out under the terms of the Valuation of Land Act 1908.4 A 'landless native' was defmed under section 2 as being an individual whose 'total beneficial interests in Native freehold land . . . are insufficient for his adequate maintenance'. 5 However, section 91 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913 declared that landlessness did not occur where land , Section 217, Native Land Act 1909 2 In cases where the land was in the South Island or outside a Maori Land District, the Native Land Court performed the role that was elsewhere performed by Maori Land Boards. Heather Bassett, Rachel Steel, David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Wellington, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994, p 272 3 Section 217, Native Land Act 1909 4 Section 223, Native Land Act 1909 5 Section 2, Native Land Act 1909 83 being sold would in no event provide sufficient support to the Maori owner, or where the Maori owner was provided adequate income from an alternative source.6 9.2 Offer of Sale to Crown On 20 June 1910, Pohonui Hapimana and three others of Te Tawera hapu wrote to Apirana N gata, informing him that they wished to sell their interests in the Matahina and Pokohu blocks. They explained that they wished to use the proceeds of the sale to purchase two sections at Matata.7 Ngata sent the letter to the Native Minister, and explained that during a recent visit to Whakatane 'many of the owners of Matahina expressed a wish to sell to the Crown.' 8 Ngata advised that: In view of the proposed Tauranga-OpotikiRiway I think the Brd should favourably consider the acquisition of Matahina. According to Land Dept report there is· very valuable timber on block.9 Following this, a petition was signed by Penetito Hawea and 127 others, offering to sell the land to the govemment. 10 Instructions were given to the Under-Secretary of the Lands Department to organise a special valuation of some of the Matahina and Pokohu subdivision.ll On 4 October, Ngata was telegraphed by T Tunui and T Pohutu, who claimed that all were 'anxious' to sell to the Crown. 12 On 26 November 1910, surveyor Tai Mitchell sent the Under Secretary of Lands the findings of the requested special valuation. 13 Mitchell detailed that, of the entire area of Matahlna A, B, and D, 13,000 acres was covered in forest which included millable varieties of trees such as totara, rimu, matai, and kahikatea. The remaining 30,000 acres was described as 'open fern and tutu country'. Mitchell explained that, as a result of the Tarawera eruption, the entire area was covered in seven to ten inches of sand and scoria. The blocks were described as mostly undulating, with a small area of broken land near Putauaki, and about 200 acres of rich flats along the Rangitaiki River which were identified to be in Matahina B. Mitchell stated that the owners of Matahina B were making use of .this land, and wished it to be reserved if negotiations for purchase were opened. Mitchell . considered that once all of the land had been broken in it would carry light stock, perhaps one sheep to the acre. He asserted that previous estimates of the timber on the block had been exaggerated. He thought the total quantity of timber was 100 million feet. Mitchell gave the following values for the Matahina blocks: Block Value Matahina AID £9720 6 Section 91, Native Land Act Amendment Act 1913. 7 Hapimana and others to Ngata, 20 June 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 8 Ngata to Native Minister, 29 June 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 9 Ibid ill . Hawea and others, 29 September 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 11 Under-Secretary, Native Department, to Under-Secretary, Lands Department, 30 September 1910, MA MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 12 Tunui and Pohutu to Ngata, 4 October 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 13 Mitchell, to Under Secretary, Lands Department, 26 November 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 84 MatahinaA2 2,000 £1,895 MatahinaA3 10,000 £11,625 Matahina B 1,500 £700 Matahina D 1,000 £825 total 43,295 £24765 Table 5: Mitchell's Valuations of Matahina Blocks, 1910 Matahina A3 was given the greatest value because it was almost entirely covered in forest. On 16 December, Mitchell's valuation was considered in a report to the Valuer General prepared by WF Wallis, an assisting officer of the Valuation Department. 14 Wallis accepted Mitchell's description of the land, but disagreed with his valuation. Wallis thought the open country was 'almost useless', and thought that a realistic estimate of its stock carrying capacity was one sheep to every 10 acres. Wallis agreed.with Mitchell's estimates of the timber on the blocks, but considered that, because of its scattered nature, no real value could be ascribed to the timber for immediate milling purposes. The Valuer General wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department, and in the light of the reports by Mitchell and Wallis, stated the value of the Matahina blocks to be £9,302. 15 9.3 Cancellation of Partitions of Matahina AtD, A3, and B From 1894, the owners of Matahina AID and A3 came before the Court to have the relative interests of each hapu determined. The hearings were lengthy, and in each case the judgements were contested in the Appellate Court. Finally, in February 1908, both blocks were partitioned; AID and A3 were respectively divided into 15 and 13 subdivisions. In April 1908, Matahina B was· also partitioned into two portions. On 30 September 1910, the Under-Secretary of the Native Department wrote to the Under-Secretary of the Lands Department, requesting information on the nature of the partitions. He explained that Ngata had informed the Native Minister that the partitions were impractical, and had advised that a surveyor should report on the matter. Although it is not directly stated in the correspondence relating to the matter, it seems very likely that the concemabout the Matahina partitions was at least partly due to the difficulty that they would pose to the process of purchasing the land. The Under Secretary of the Native Department told his counterpart in the Lands Department that, in the event of the Crown acquiring the land, the partitions would be 'unnecessary' .16 On 27 November, surveyor Tai Mitchell advised the Under-Secretary of the Lands Department that the partitions should be cancelled. He stated that, in making the partitions, the Court had 'followed the old system of subdividing without any regard to access'. He considered the result to be 'altogether unsatisfactory, impracticable & costly'. Mitchell recommended that, following the cancellation of the partitions, a road scheme 14 Wallis to Valuer General, 16 December 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 15 Valuer General to Under Secretary, Native Department, 5 January 1911, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 16 Under Secretary, Native Department, to Under Secretary, Lands Department, 30 September 1910, MA MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 85 should be prepared by the Survey Department 'to effect a partition that would be conducive to the settlement of the country.'17 Accordingly, a year later, on 15 December 1911, the Court cancelled the partitions upon hearing an application by the Native Minister under section 121 of the Native Land Act 1909.18 At the hearing, Panawhi Meihana spoke on behalf of the owners. He told the Court that a meeting had been held, and that the owners agreed to the cancellation of the partitions of Matahina AID, A3, and B.19 9.4 Meeting of Owners to Consider the Crown's Offer, 1912 On 10 January 1912, the Crown applied to the Court for meetings of owners to be called to consider the following purchase offers:20 Block Area (acres) Offer Matahina AID 28,795 £3,960 MatahinaA2 2,000 £618 MatahinaA3 10,000 £3,938 MatahinaB2 1,500 £598 MatahinaD2 80 £40 total 42375 £9154 Table 6: Prices Offered by Crown for Matahina Blocks, 1912 The Crown's application for Matahina B2 gave an incorrect figure for the block's area, which was 987 acres. It appears that this application was dismissed, as no meeting of the owners of Matahina B2 was held. On 18 March 1912, meetings were held at Te Teko for the owners of Matahina AID, A2, A3, and D2. A quorum was not established atthe meeting of the owners of Matahina D2.21 The owners present at the meetings for Matahina AID, A2, and A3 resolved to sell each of the blocks for £3 an acre. 22 Commenting on these resolutions, the President of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board wrote to the Native Minister: I do not suppose that the Crown will be prepared to pay this sum and I would suggest that a defmite amount per acre be offered ...' and another meeting called. Meetings have been called for the purpose of considering offers to sell or lease to private individuals, but it is unlikely either that the Natives will take less than the amount they asked from the Government, or that the private individuals will be prepared to pay that amount. 17 Mitchell to Under Secretary, Lands Department, 27 November 1910, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 18 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 11, 15 December 1911, p 93 19 Ibid 20 Applications to Summon Meetings of Owners, 10 January 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 21 President, WDMLB, to Minister of Native Affairs, 30 March 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 22 Conftrmations of Resolutions Passed by Meetings of Owners, 29 March 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellil}gton 86 All things being equal, the natives would prefer to sell to the Crown.23 On 16 April, the Under Secretary of the Native Department replied to the President of the Board, informing him that the owners' offers had been declined. 24 The Crown did not pursue the purchase of the Matahina blocks. On 31 August 1912, HK Tunui wrote to Herries, the new Native Minister following a change of government. Tunui stated that 'the Ngatiawa people as a whole' desired to sell Matahina AID, A2, and A3 to the government. He infonned the Native Minister that he would proceed to Wellington if the government wished to purchase the land. 25 Herries replied to Tunui, stating that the Crown was willing to buy the land 'at a price', but that Tunui would need to provide a list of those wishing to sell and their interests.26 Tunui responded, stating that more than 400 of the owners wished to sell, and that the price could be fixed upon his visit to Wellington. 27 Bringing the matter to an end, the Under Secretary of the Native Department replied to Tunui, stressing that a unanimous decision of the owners was required to detennine the price.28 9.S Summary Following the passage of the Native Land Act 1909, the alienation of Maori land was brought under the control of Maori Land Boards. The 1909 Act also removed alienation restrictions. In the Matahina block, this meant that for the first time Matahina A2 and A3 could be alienated. In June 1910, owners of some of the Matahina subdivisions expressed an interest in selling their land to the Crown. A valuation was subsequently carried out of Matahina AID, A2, A3, B, and D, and in January 1912, applications were made to summon meetings of the owners of these blocks. It appears that the Crown was particularly interested in acquiring the timber that was on these lands. In December 1911, upon application by the Native Minister, the Court cancelled orders for the partition of Matahina AID, A3, and B, which had been made when the relative interests in these blocks were detennined. The·owners agreed to the cancellation of the partitions, which were stated to have been 'impracticable'. In March 1912, meetings of the oWners of Matahina AID, A2, A3, and D were held in Te Teko. A quorum was not established at the Matahina D meeting, while resolutions were passed at the other meetings to sell to the Crown for £3 an acre. These offers were declined. 23 President, WDMLB, to Minister of Native Affairs, 30 March 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 24 Under Secretary of Native Affairs to President, WDMLB, 16 April 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 25 Tunui to Native Minister, 31 August 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 26 Native Minister to Tunui, 10 September 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 27 Tunui to Native Minister, 20 September 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 28 Under Secretary to Tunui, 14 October 1912, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 87 ------~ - J 10. The Sale of Matahina A2, A3, and Part AID to Private Interests 10.1 Meetings of Owners, July 1914 On 31 July 1914, meetings of the owners of Matahina AID, A2, and A3, were held at Whakatane to consider offers to purchase the blocks made by private interests. The meeting of the owners of Matahina AID was the result of applications by Francis Mills and William Alfred Elwarth. When the meeting was held at Whakatane, 24 owners were present, and another 64 represented by proxy. 1 A list of owners from around this time shows that there were some 612 owners holding 6390 shares.2 At the opening of the meeting, Mills' application was withdrawn, leaving the owners only Elwarth'sto consider. Elwarth proposed that 5,000 acres be sold to him for £1 12s 6d an acre. During the course ofthe meeting, Elwarth amended this offer, adjusting the purchase price to £1 15s an acre. Discussing Elwarth's proposal, Tiaki Rewiri requested that it be amended to £2 an acre, while Ihaka stated that he did not agree to .the sale and wished his share to be cut out. Penetito Hawea supported Elwarth's offer. Following the discussion, the motion was put that 5000 acres, 'the portion covered by the Bush', be sold to Elwarth for £1 15s, with all monies to be paid to the Board, and all new survey charges to be met by the purchaser. This motion was carried, with 1,028 shares in favour, and 115 against,l The 1028 shares that carried the decision represented just 16 percent of the total shares held in Matahina AID. A memorial of dissent was signed by Atarau Timumuhu and 26 others, who desired there shares to be cut out of the block. 4 Calculated at £1 15s an acre, the owners of Matahina AID would receive £8750 for the 5000 acres that were to be sold to Elwarth. A valuation carried outon3 September gave the value of this area to be £5000. The land was valued at £1250, and the timber at £3750. 5 The meeting of the owners of Matahina A2was held to consider applications by Francis George Mills and Arthrur Galbraith. The meeting was' attended by 23 ·owners, and another 20 were represented by proxy.6 A schedule of ownersfi'omthis time shows that there were 149 owners, who held 672 shares.7 Mills' application was again withdrawn at the opening of the meeting. Galbraith's application proposed that the 2000 acre block be sold to him for £1 12s 6d an acre. However, following the withdrawal of Mills' application, Elwarth, who was Galbraith's representative at the meeting, increased this offer to £115s 1 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina AID, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 2 Schedule of Owners, file 1914-128, found in BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NAAuckland 3 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina AID, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 4 Memorial of Dissent from Resolution of Assembled Owners, 1 August 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 5 Valuation,3 September 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 6 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina A2, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 7 Schedule of Owners, BAJJ A 73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 88 an acre.8 Poipoi Tiaki disagreed with this price, stating that there was 'good milling timber' and a saw pit on the block. Tiaki told the meeting that he thought the land should be purchased for £3 ISs an acre. However, Raerino Ngatoatoa and Rama Penetito respectively proposed and seconded a motion that Matahina A2 be sold to Galbraith for £1 ISs an acre, with all monies to be paid to the Board, and all new survey charges to be met by the purchaser. This motion was carried. There were 138 shares in favour of the motion, and 57 against. The number of shares in favour of the motion represented about 20 percent of the total shares held in Matahina A2. A memorial of dissent was signed by 18 owners, who stated that they wished their share to be cut from the block.9 Receiving £1 ISs an acre, the owners would be paid a total amount of £3500. A valuation carried out on 3 September found Matahina A2 to have a value of £2000. It was detailed that the land was worth £500, and the timber £1500. 10 The owners of Matahina A3 met to consider'two applications; one by James Sexton and Thomas Mackay, and the other by Roderick MacKenzie and William Galbraith. There were 77 owners present at the meeting. 11 It is unclear how many owners were represented by proxy, this not having been detailed in the minutes of the meeting. According to a list of owners prepared at this time, there were 353 owners of Matahina A3. 12 Galbraith and MacKenzie were represented at the meeting by Elwarth, and a Mr Falwasser appeared on behalf of Sexton and Mackay. At the. opening of the meeting, Elwarth amended the offers of Galbraith and MacKenzie to £1 ISs an acre, raising it from the £1 12s given in their applications. Responding to this, Falwasser raised the offers of Sexton and Mackay from £1 lOs an acre to £2 2s 6d an acre. A process of biddiIig continued until both Elwarth and Falwasser were offering £3 7s 6d an acre. At this stage ofthe meeting, Hori Powell told the Court that 'we will not sell at any price. ,\3 Elwarth stated that stated that a vote should be held. The meeting was then adjourned. At its reopening, Falwasser withdrew the applications of Sexton and Mackay, explaining that he had communicated with them and had found that he had offered a price that exceeded what they could pay. Elwarth told the meeting that he would 'complete his obligation', and accordingly the motion was put that Matahina A3 be sold in two 5000 acre portions to Galbraith and MacKenzie for £3 7s 6d an acre, with all monies to be paid to the Board, and all new survey charges to be met by the purchasers. This motion was carried. The· minutes of the meeting do not detail the voting for and against the motion. Two memorials of dissent were signed by 34 owners, who declared that they did not agree with the sale, and that they wished their share to be cut OUt. 14 The owners of Matahina A3 would receive, at £3 7s 6d an acre, a total amount of 8 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina A2, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 9 Memorial of Dissent from Resolution of Assembled Owners, 1 August 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 10 Valuation, 3 September 1914, BAJJ A 73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 11 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina A3, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 12 Schedule of Owners, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 13 Minutes of Meeting of the Owners of Matahina A3, 31 July 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 14 Memorials of Dissent from Resolution of Assembled Owners, 1 August 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 89 - ----::::::-==::-::--::-=-=_==-::::J Map 8 Matahina A3A and Matahina A3B N MATAHINA A3B 9578a 2r 2p . 421a lr38p o 2 4 6 kilometres 90 £33,750. A valuation carried out in March 1913 showed Matahina A3A and A3B, which had been partitioned by this time, to have a total value of just £2,900. 15 In October 1914, the Waiariki District Native Land Court confirmed the resolutions carried at the meetings of the owners of Matahina AID and A2.16 Valuations indicated that the owners would receive an appropriate amount of money for the land. The owners of Matahina AID would not be made landless from the sale of 5000 acres of the block. A schedules of the other lands possessed by the owners of Matahina A2 showed that none would be left landless by the sale of the block. 17 10.2 Partition of Matahina A3, November 1914 Confirmation of the resolution passed by the owners of Matahina A3 was postponed to allow the dissenting owners to have their interests cut out from the block. Accordingly, on 17 November 1914, Matahina A3 was partitioned.18 Matahina A3A, with an area of 421 acres 1 rood 38 perches, contained the interests of those who did not wish to sell. There were 27 individuals named to be the owners of Matahina A3A, whose shares in the block totalled 135 1/21 , and were held unequally. It is unclear whether the owners of Matahina A3A represented a particular hapu interest. Map 8 shows the position of Matahina A3A. Hori Pawa, who presented the application for partition, told· the Court that the owners of Matahina A3 had agreed to these boundaries. 19 The cutting out of the interests of the non-sellers left the remainder of the block, Matahina A3B, with an area of 9588 acres 2 roods 2 perches. This land was to be divided between Galbraith and MacKenzie. 10.3 Delay in the Purchase Payments for Matahina A2, A3, and part A1D While it is unclear exactly what were the terms of payment for the purchasers of the Matahina lands, it seems that they were expected to pay the total purchase. money soon after the resolutions of the owners had been confinned. Difficulty in making the required payments saw the purchasers request an extension of time to complete the purchases. On :2 December 1915, Elwarth wrote to Judge Browne, informing him of the financial difficulties that the he and the other purchasers were experiencing: I fmd it impossible for us to complete the purchase of Matahina by the next meeting cf the Board. I must ask your honor for an extension of time. I would not ask for this extension, only there is no doubt about us completing the purchase of Matahina. It would have been completed long ago, only on account of the War. We have spent a 15 Valuation, 31 March 1913, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 16 Registrar, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 December 1919, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington, NA Auckland 17 Schedule of Other Lands Owned, undated, BAJJ A73 1914-152, box 48, MatahinaA2 alienation file, NA Auckland; Schedule of Other Lands Owned, undated, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 18 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 12, 17 November 1914. pp 368-369 19 Ibid 91 considerable amount of money already in connection with the purchase of this Block ... . As your honor knows we have paid a high price for this Block and as the Maoris are receiving the benefit of this price over and above what they will receive if it falls back into their hands for repurchase.20 It appears that Elwarth's request for an extension was granted. However, on 6 January 1916, Elwarth asked that the purchasers be given until May 1916 to complete the purchase.21 In May, Elwarth informed the Registrar of the Court that it had not been . possible to access the required funds. He explained that money that had been invested by the purchasers prior to the outbreak of World War One could not be drawn upon owing to the Moratorium Act. Elwarth asserted that, with this money, the full amount of purchase money could be discharged. He recommended the following terms of repaymene2 (1) £10,000 to be divided over the four blocks in proportion to total purchase money (2) £10,000 to be paid in 12 months divided as above (3) The balance ofthe purchase money to be paid in three years at five percent (4) No timber to be removed until the completion of payments Elwarth considered that this proposal was 'in the interest of the natives as well as ourselves, and a protection against their squandering their money.,23 The owners of Matahina AID, A2, and A3 agreed to this proposal at a meeting of owners held at Whakatane on 16 June 1916.24 However, the purchasers failed to make the first payment, and in March 1917 complaint was voiced by Rotorua lawyers claiming to represent the owners: The Natives think that all reasonable consideration has been extended to the proposed purchasers in this matter, and instruct us now to request the Board to fmal7s' dispose cf the existing applications in order that they may deal with the land elsewhere. S Responding to this, the Registrar of the Board queried whether the lawyers represented Maori owners or prospective purchasers.26 In reply, "the lawyers ,asserted that they were acting 'for a considerable body of the Natives represented more particularly in this town by Pirika te Miroi.' While they denied'8.ctingfor any definite purchasers, it was acknowledged that' several gentlemen have been in touch with us on the matter. ,27 20 Elwarth to Browne, 2 December 1915, BAJJ A73 1914-152, box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file, NA Auckland 21 Elwarth to Registrar, WDNLC, 6 January 1916, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 22 Ibid 23 Ibid 24 Ayson to Peak and Kirkes, 22 November 1920, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 2S Hampson and Davys to Registrar, WDMLB, 19 March 1917, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 26 Registrar, WDMLB, to Hampson and Davys, 22 March 1917, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 27 Hampson and Davys to Registrar, WDMLB, 26 March 1917, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 92 Despite the complaint, the proposed purchase of the block remained in place. However, payment difficulties persisted, and in August 1917 Roderick MacKenzie wrote to the President of the Board, explaining that 'war conditions' had made the payment of the first deposit of £10,000 impossible.28 He told the President that £2,000 would be available in November, and that the balance of £8,000 would be paid six months after the conclusion of the war. In reply, the President stated that the Board 'recognises the stringency of the financial market brought about by the war, and for that reason it will extend your option' .29 This decision appears to have been made without consulting the owners of the land. Defining the new terms, the Registrar of the Court wrote to MacKenzie and Elwarth, outlining the following schedule of payments: 30 (1) £2,000 to be paid immediately (2) £8,000 to be paid six months after the termination of the war (3) £10,000 to be paid 12 months after the payment of the £8,000 (4) The balance of the purchase money to be paid within three years of the payment of the £8,000 (5) Interest of five percent to be payable from the time of the payment of the £8,000 In accordance with this schedule, Elwarth and MacKenzie paid £2000 to the Board on 19 November 1918.31 10.4 Inquiry into the Purchase of the Matahina Blocks On 13 December 1919, the Secretary of the Forestry Department wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department, requesting to be informed about the sale of the Matahina lands to private interests.32 The Secretary wished to know whether the Wairiki Board had confirmed the alienations, and if it had not, asked that this be postponed to allow the Commissioner of State Forests to consider whether the lands should be acquired by the Government for forestry purposes. In reply, the Under Secretary of the Native Department provided a letter from the Registrar of the Board which detailed that the resolutions to sell had been confirmed, although the transactions were incomplete.33 On 3 March 1920, the Secretary of the Forestry Department wrote again to the Under Secretary of the Native Department, informing him that the Commissioner of State Forests had been offered Matahina A2, A3, and part AID by Wright, Stephenson, and Company 28 MacKenzie to President, WDMLB, 27 August 1918, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 29 President, WDMLB, to MacKenzie, 28 September 1918, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 30 Registrar, WDNLC, to MacKenzie and Elwarth, 4 December 1918, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 31 MacKenzie and Elwarth to Registrar, WDNLC, 19 November 1918, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 32 Secretary, Department of Forestry, to Under Secretary, Native Department, l3 December 1919, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 33 Under Secretary, Native Department, to Secretary, Department of Forestry, 19 December 1919, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington; Registrar, WDMLB to Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 December 1919, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 93 on behalf of unidentified individuals.34 The Secretary detailed that the lands had been offered for around £250,000, about five times the amount which the Maori owners had agreed to sell them for six years earlier. He explained that: The Hon the Commissioner of State Forests is of [the] opinion that the purchase of these contiguous blocks at the same time and the subsequent offer of them as a whole to him strongly indicates that there has been an evasion of the provisions of the Native Land Act; and he now proposes, in his capacity of Attorney-General, to attack the titles to the land.35 The Secretary of the Department of Forestry wasconcemed that the purchasers had broken statutory restrictions by acquiring individual interests in the Matahina lands and then subsequently acting as a syndicate. Section 195 of the 1909 Act prohibited individuals, jointly or otherwise, from acquiring· an area of land if that ·land could not be lawfully possessed by anyone of the individuals owing to the limitation of area. John Salmond, the Solicitor General, provided the Forestry Department with an opinion of the purchase of the Matahina lands. Salmond noted that the confirmation of the resolutions to sell did not amount 'to a contract of sale or confer any rights upon the purchasers', but had merely made the Board the agent of the owners to execute instruments of alienation.36 He stated that it was 'entirely in the discretion of the Board ... whether they will so complete the sale or not.' Salmond considered that the transaction was 'probably fraudulent', and stated that it should be prevented 'by any means possible. ,37 He advised that: If the Crown has it in contemplation to negotiate with the Natives themselves for the purchase of Matahina, an Order in Council can on the recommendation of the Native Land Purchase Board be issued under Section 363 of the Native Land Act prohibiting all alienation of the land for one year otherwise that to the Crown.... lfthe Crown is not prepared to purchase this land the only course will be for the Native Minister to communicate with the Maori Land Board stating that the proposed purchase by this syndicate had been brought to his notice and asking the Board for a full report on the matter and further requesting them to take no further action until the. Government has had an opportunity to consider the matter.38 The Commissioner of State Forests minuted Salmond's letter, noting to the Native Minister his opinion that 'This fraudulent diversion of Native Forest Land should be stopped.'39 On 9 April 1920, the Native Minister requested that an Order in Council be prepared prohibiting the alienations of Matahina AID, A2, and A3 for a period of one year, except to the Crown.40 The Order in Council was signed on 19 April 1920.41 34 Secretary, Department of Forestry, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 3 March 1920, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 35 Ibid 36 Salmond to Secretary, Department of Forestry, I April 1920, MA-MLP 11910/59, NA Wellington 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 Commissioner of State Forests to Native Minister, undated, on ibid 40 Native Minister to Under Secretary, Native Department, 9 April 1920, on Salmond to Secretary, Department of Forestry, I April 1920, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 41 Prohibiting all Alienation of certain Native Lands other than Alienation in favour of the Crown, 19 April 1920, New Zealand Gazette, 1920, no?, pp 1252-1253 94 ------=~J On 6 May, Judge Ayson, the President of the Wairiki District Native Land Board, wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department. 42 Ayson asserted that there was nothing improper about the alienations of the Matahina blocks. He argued that the purchase prices were 'favourable' to the Maori owners, and were considerably greater than the offers which had been made by the Crown. Ayson informed the Under Secretary that he was claiming £9000 for interest on the unpaid purchase money, explaining that concessions had been wrongly granted to the purchasers by the late Judge Wilson without consulting the owners. Ayson asserted that the purchasers had acted in a bone fide manner, and that concessions made by the Board were allowed on account of the difficulties of financing during the war. Ayson requested that he be informed as to how the Crown would proceed with the matter. The Commissioner of State Forests wrote to the Native Minister on 24 August 1920, informing him that it was desirable that the Crown should own the Matahina forest lands. 43 He stated, however, that a report of the blocks showed that previous. estimates of millable timber were 'very much exaggerated'. The Commissioner requested that the Native Land Purchase Board be asked to negotiate the purchase of the lands at a price not less than that which the owners would have received from the private purchasers. It appears that the Commissioner considered that the Order in Council cancelled the 1914 owners' resolutions to sell Matahina A2, A3, and part AID to Elwarth and others. On 22 November 1920, lawyers representing the purchasers wrote to Judge Ayson requesting that they be allowed to complete the transactions. It was stated that, in accordance with the terms defmed in 1918, arrangements had been made for the payment of £8,000. The purchasers' lawyers requested Ayson to arrange to have the Order in Council withdrawn.44 In reply, the Ayson stated that the Board had no power to revoke the Order in Council, which he acknowledged was preventing the completion of the transactions.45 Ayson also informed the purchasers' lawyers that interest upon the whole of the purchase money had been outstanding since June 1916, when the meeting of owners was held at Whakatane. He explained that the . waiver of interest provided in the terms established in 1918 could not be allowed, 'as:the Board had' no power to waive without the . consent of the Native Owners, who were not consulted. ,46 Following this, on 21 January 1921, the purchasers' lawyers wrote to FD Bell, the Attorney General, requesting that the Order in Council be revoked47 It was explained that the purchase money was available, which would allow the transaction to be competed. The Solicitor General responded to this request, stating that it was necessary for the Order in 42 President, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 6 May 1920, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 43 Commissioner of State Forests to Native Minister, 24 August 1920, MA-MLP 1 1910159, NA Wellington 44 Peak and Kirker to President, WDMLB, 22 November 1920, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 45 President to Peak and Kirkes, WDMLB, 9 December 1920, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file, NA Auckland 46 Ibid 47 Peak and Kirker to Attorney General, 21 January 1921, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 95 Council to remain in place until the legality of the acquisition of the Matahina lands had been considered.48 It is clear that Bell considered that the transactions were unlawful. In a note to the Solicitor General written on 22 January 1921, he gave his opinion of the purchasers objectives: To avoid the prohibition against acquisition of native areas exceeding a certain acreage . . . these several individuals applied for adjoining strips of forests & got resolutions of assembled owners for each strip. Each individual made the required statutory declaration that he was acquiring for himself alone. Then later they appear as a syndicate & ask the Govt to purchase from them at a huge profit. 49 Bell stated that this was a practice he wished to stop 'at all costs', and explained that he wished to issue a commission of investigation to an officer of the public service to enquire into the matter. 50 On 31 May 1921, the Registrar of the Wairiki District Native Land Board telegraphed the Native Department, enquiring as to whether the Crown intended to renew the alienation prohibition, which had lapsed in April. He stated that the 'Matahina Timber Syndicate' proposed to complete the purchase of the blocks. 51 On 2 June 1921, the Under Secretary of the Native Department advised that the President of the Board that the prohibition remained in force. 52 A second Order in Council was signed on 13 January 1921, extending the prohibition of alienation, except to the Crown, for a period of one year. 53 EF Hawthorne was appointed Commissioner to investigate the purchase of the Matahina blocks. Evidence was heard in Rotorua and Whakatane in July 1921. Hawthorne found that the purchasers' intentions had been honest, and that although they had acted unlawfully, this had not been deliberate. In his report, Hawthorne stated that: After carefully considering the evidence of all the witnesses in this case, and particularly that of the chief witness, Mr W.A. Elwarth, whose demeanour under examination was perfectly straightforWard and frank, I am of'opinion that no violation of the law; was intended or contemplated. Mr Elwarth quite· frankly 'admitted that the object of himself and his fellow applicants was to work the whole 17,000 acres as one· concern.' He was fully aware of the provisions of section 72 of the Native' Land, Amendment Act, .·1913, (relating to limitation of area), but stated that he did not know of the provisions of section 195 of the principal Act, which provides that it shall not be lawful for any persons as partners or otherwise . . . to acquire, whether severally or in common, any undivided shares in Native Land, if anyone ofthose persons is prohibited by Part XII of the Act from acquiring all of those shares for himself. I believe his evidence to be true, and that he did not understand that by jointly taking up a larger area that the law allowed, he and his friends would have been violating the law.54 48 Solicitor General to Peak and Kirker, 31 January 1921, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 49 Attorney General to Solicitor General, 22 January 1921, on Secretary, Department of Forestry, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 6 November 1920, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 50 Ibid 51 Registrar, WDMLB, to Native Department, 31 May 1921, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 52 Under Secretary, Native Department, to President, WDMLB, 2 June 1921, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 53 Prohibiting all Alienation of certain Native Lands other than Alienation in favour of the Crown, 13 June 1921, New Zealand Gazette, 1921, no 58, p 1587 54 EF Hawthorne, Report of Commissioner, p 18, cited in Gardiner, attachment 28 96 Hawthorne considered that this finding was confirmed by the evidence of other witnesses, and that nothing in the evidence of Maori owners who he had interviewed at Whakatane contradicted it. He acknowledged that it was 'highly suspicious' that the blocks were offered to the Crown at 'an immense advance' on the price that the purchasers had agreed to pay the Maori owners. However, Hawthorne considered that 'Mr Elwarth's evidence removes the suspicion, and shows that he acted in a bona fide manner, and only erred through ignorance ofthe law.'55 On 25 November 1921, the Commissioner of State Forests wrote to the Native Minister, informing him that, owing to 'present financial conditions', the purchase of the Matahina lands by the Crown was no longer desired. The Commissioner requested that the prohibition of private alienations be lifted.56 Accordingly, the Order in Council that had been issued in June was revoked on 21 December 1921.57 10.5 Transfer of Part Matahina AlD to William Elwarth, December 1923 On 21 March 1923,. the Deputy President of the Wairiki District Maori Land Board wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department, asking to be advised if the alienation prohibition remained in force. 58 He stated that, an informal meeting was to be held in April of the owners, the purchasers, and the Board. Details of this meeting have not been found, but it seems evident that an agreement was reached to proceed with the sale of Matahina A2 to William Galbraith, and part Matahina AID to William Elwarth. The President of theWaiariki District Native Land Board signed a Memorandum of Transfer as agent for the owners of Matahina AID on 3 December 1923. The document was executed under the terms of the resolution passed by the owners on 31 July 1914.59 The 5000 acres of Matahina AID transferred to Elwarth is shown in Map 9. The Memorandum of Transfer details that, in accordance with the terms of 1914 resolution, Elwarth paid £8750 for this land. It is unclear,-however, whether interest was paid to the owners. The alienation file concerning the fmal stage of Elwarth's purchase of this land could not be located during the preparation of this report. On 24 February 1925; Elwarth's solicitors wrote to the President of the Wairiki District Maori Land Board, requesting· that an Order in Council be issued excluding Elwarth from the provisions of section 203 of the Native Land Act 1909.60 This would allow Elwarth to acquire an area of Maori land in excess of the statutory maximum of 5000 acres. Elwarth's lawyers explained that this was desired because it would enable Elwarth to acquire the 55 Ibid 56 Commissioner of State Forests to Native Minister, 25 November 1921, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 57 ?, 21 December 1921, New Zealand Gazette, 1921, no ?, p ? 58 Deputy President, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 21 March 1923, MA-MLP 1 1910/59, NA Wellington 59 Memorandum of Transfer 192977, LINZ, Hamilton 60 Hampson, Davys, and Ford, to President, WDMLB, 24 February 1925, BAH A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina A 1D alienation file, NA Auckland 97 whole of the bush portion of Matahina AID, which had been shown by a trial survey to have an area of about 6,100 acres, some 1,100 acres greater than had originally been estimated. It was asserted that Elwarth's acquisition of the entire bush portion was important to 'the whole transaction', and that the Maori owners had agreed that the whole bush portion should be sold. Elwarth's lawyers argued that his plans for the land would be economically beneficial to the Whakatane region: The purchaser proposes to erect a timber mill on the land this Winter and commence cutting in Spring. This will open up the timber industry in the Whakatane District where at present timber has to be secured from a distance and it will give employment to a large number ofmen.61 The Registrar of the Board wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department on 31 March 1925, recommending that an Order in Council be issued .excluding .Elwarth from the provisions of section 203 of the 1909 Act. 62 In justifying the recommendation, the Registrar advanced the same reasoning that had been employed by Elwarth's lawyers. The Under Secretary replied to the Registrar on 6 May 1925, informing him without an explanation that, 'the Native Minister has decided that no action in the direction of the issue of the Order in Council asked for shall be taken' .63 10.6 Lease of 31 acres of Matahina AID to Elwarth, 1926 In November 1923, prior to the sale of land to Elwarth, a modification was made to the resolution passed by the owners of Matahina AID in 1914.64 It provided that: an easement or right of way over a strip of land not exceeding 1 chain in width be granted by the owners ofMatahina AID to the proposed alienee for such a term and sum as may be fixed by the Board.6s The purpose of the easement was to allow for the construction of a tramline. On 13 May 1926, Elwarth's lawyers wrote to the Registrar of the Waiariki District Native Land Board, enclosing a draft of the proposed lease. It was explained that: The construction of the tramway is commencing and it is desirable to ·facilitate all tramway grants and licenses necessary to open ~ the bush and commence an undertaking which will materially benefit the Bay of Plenty . A Memorandum of Lease was executed by the President of the Board on 6 October 1927.67 It appears from an examination of this document that, without consulting the owners, the 61 Ibid 62 Registrar, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 31 March 1931, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 63 Under Secretary, Native Department, to Registrar, WDMLB, 6 May 1925, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 64 Elwarth's lawyers enclosed with a letter to the Registrar of the Board an extract from the WDMLB minute book, dated 22 November 1923, which records that the matter of the modification was discussed. 6S Modification of resolution, undated, on Confirmation of Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 19 October 1914, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina AID alienation file, NA Auckland 66 Hampson, Davys, and Ford, to President, WDMLB, 24 February 1925, BAJJ A73 1914-155, box 49, Matahina A ID alienation file, NA Auckland 67 Memorandum of Lease 13809, LINZ, Hamilton 98 ------_-1 I' Board modified the 1914 resolution 'by virtue of powers conferred on it by Section 356 of the Native Land Act 1909'.68 Section 356(5) of the 1909 Act provided that Boards could confirm a resolution 'subj ect to any modifications which in the opinion of the Board are rendered just or necessary'. Under the terms of the lease, Elwarth agreed to pay a yearly rental of £15 for a strip of 31 acres 1 rood 10 perches, which was to be used 'as a Tramway line for the purpose of removal of timber from the portion of the land purchased' .69 10.7 Transfer of Matahina A2 to Arthur Galbraith, December 1923 On 3 December 1923, the President of the Board also signed a Memorandum of Transfer as agent for the owners of Matahina A2. Again, this document was signed under the provisions of the 1914 resolution of owners,and in accordance with this resolution the purchase price was stated to be £3500. 70 The 'alienation ,file relating to the final transfer of Matahina A2 to Galbraith appears to have been either lost or destroyed, ,and it is again unclear whether the owners received interest. 10.8 Purchase of Matahina A3B by George Syme Jnr and George Syme and Co Ltd, 1925 The 1914 resolution of the owners of Matahina A3 to sell the block to William Galbraith and Roderick MacKenzie was never confIrmed by the Board. The sale of Matahina A3B to Galbraith and MacKenzie did not eventuate following the removal of the alienation prohibition. This may have been because William Galbraith and MacKenzie wished to withdraw from the sale, although this seems doubtful given that Elwarth and Arthur .Galbraith proceeded with the purchase of Matahina A2 and part AID. A more likely explanation is that the owners wished to pursue offers made by other interested parties who were willing to pay a greater price for the land. Indeed, the eventual purchasers of Matahina· A3B, George Syme Jnr and George Syme and Co Ltd, paid £4 an acre for the land, 12s 6d an acre more than that which the owners had resolved to accept from William Galbraith and Roderick MacKenzie. On 7 March 1924, a meeting of the owners of Matahina A3B was held at Te Teko to consider a proposal to purchase the block made by HJ Kelliher and FW Matthews. The minutes of this meeting record that: A very large number of owners were present. The feeling was unanimous against selling the Block for a sum less than £5 per acre. As the proposed purchasers representatives offered only 35/- per acre, the offer was refused and the whole resolution rejected.71 Another meeting of owners was held at Te Teko on 16 June 1924. The Board's representative at the meeting wrote to the President, informing him of the proceedings: 68 Ibid 69 Ibid 70 Memorandum of Transfer 189999, LINZ, Hamilton 71 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, 7 March 1924, file 3921, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 99 ------I 1 ______ There were four applications before the meeting. Mr Hampson represented two of the applications, and Mr TM Lawson the other two. A very large number of the owners were present. . . . Mr Lawson, who was representing Messrs Earl, Kent, Massey, and Northcroft, stated that his clients were prepared to give £3/12/6 per acre for the Block. Mr Hampson . . . did not think his clients would give as much and, therefore, considered himself out of the running. The discussion after this centred on Mr Lawson's applications. Mr Lawson raised his price by the addition of £100. A vote was subsequently taken, and the resolutions were rejected.72 On 11 July 1924, owners of Matahina A3B again met at Te Teko to consider proposals to sell the block. Reporting to the President of the Board, the Board's representative at the meeting again stated that 'there was a very large number of the owners in attendance. m Two sets of applications were considered at the meeting. The first to be dealt with were those ofL'Gannon and TW Maben, whose representative asked that their.applications be adjourned sine die. He explained that his clients would not pay the price which the owners were asking for the land. The owners insisted, that the applications of Gannon and Maben be struck out, a proposal which was agreed to 'on the voices.'74 Following this, the owners then considered the applications of George Syme Jm and George Syme and Co Ltd. One of the owners, Hori Pawa, requested that the meeting be adjourned to allow pending applications to be heard and considered at the same time as the Symes' applications. The majority of the owners disagreed with this, and after a short discussion, the resolutions were read and a vote taken. The resolutions proposed that the land be sold in two portions for £4 an acre. There were 294 votes in favour of the resolutions, and 199 against. In terms of shares, there were approximately 1033 shares in favour, and approximately 763 against. The Board's representative observed that 'voting was fairly even', and that 'both parties took very great interest in the voting' .75 Following the meeting, memorials of dissent were signed by 37 of the owners of Matahina A3B. 76 On 28 July, the resolutions were confirmed by the Board. 77 The Registrar of the Board informed the Under Secretary of Native Department that 'the Board considered the resolutions and after hearing the various parties, decided to.confirmtheresolutions, subject to the production of the necessary documents'.78 A valuation submitted with the applications of Gannon and Maben detailed that the land and. timber were. respectively valued at £2500 and £12,000, giving a total value of £14,500.79 The Board accepted this 72 Anam to President, WDMLB, 23 June 1924, file 3986, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 73 Anam to President, WDMLB, 17 July 1924, file 4025, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 74 Ibid 75 Ibid 76 Memorials of Dissent, file 4026, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 77 Confirmation of Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 28 July 1924, file 4025, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua; Confirmation of Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 28 July 1924, file 4026, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 78 Registrar, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 31 July 1924, MA 1 1924/345, NA Wellington 79 Welsh, McCarthy, Beechey, and Houston, to President, WDMLB, 2 August 1924, file 4026, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 100 ------1 valuation, which appeared to show that the owners had received a generous price for the land. 80 It seems that the Board confirmed the resolutions without examining whether the owners had sufficient other lands. No schedule of the other lands belonging to the owners of Matahina A3B can be found in the alienation file concerning the sale to George Syme 1nr and George Syme Co Ltd. However, such a schedule was prepared for Matahina A3 in 1914.81 This schedule shows that the only other lands possessed by many of the owners of Matahina A3 were interests in Matahina AID, which were often quite small. Te Apa Maora, for example, possessed no other land except for a share of Matahina AID which was calculated to equate to just 5 acres. Following the Board's confirmation of the resolutions,a petition was drawn up and signed by Eramiha Heke and 50 other owners of Matahina A3B. 82 The petition· claimed that there were approximately 1,000 owners of the block; who held a totalof3060 shares. Therefore, it detailed, about half of the owners were present or represented at the meeting of owners. The petition also detailed the voting for and against the resolutions, and noted that subsequent withdrawals of dissent had reduced the number of dissenting shares to 572. The petition stated that the owners who dissented from the resolutions did so on the following grounds: (a) That they did not consider £4 a sufficient price in view of the price offered by other intending purchasers. (b) That they wished only to grant timber cutting rights and to have the land to revert to them at the expiration of the term. (c) That they did not wish to alienate their lands.83 The petition claimed that the dissenting owners had applied to the Board under section 348 of the Native Land Act 1909 to enable them to have their interests partitioned out. It stated that the Board disallowed the dissenting owners' request upon the grounds that the . area which would be cut out was not sufficient to warrant a partition, . as the whole of the survey costs would have to be borne by the dissenting owners, and would be too heavy. However, the petition claimed that the area· held by . the . petitioners was· approximately 1,000 acres, which according to the price offered by the purchasers; had a value of £4,000 . . It was therefore asserted that 'your Petitioners' interests are valuable and your Petitioners should not be forced to alienate their lands. ,84 If the dissenting owners held 572 shares, then their interest in Matahina A3B actually equated to just under 1800 acres. The petition stated that it would be desirable for the interests of the dissenting owners to be cut out adjacent to Matahina A3A. It claimed that 'the said land is useful for grazing 80 President, WDMLB, to Welsh, McCarthy, Beechey, and Houston, 27 August 1924, file 4026, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 81 Schedule of Other Lands Owned, undated, BAJJ A73 1914-154, box 48, MatahinaA3 alienation file, NA Auckland 82 Later documents concerning Matahina A3A give the name of an Eramiha Neke, which may have been the petitioner's correctly spelt name. Petition of Eramiha Heke and others, MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 33911924, NA Wellington 83 Ibid, P 2 84 Ibid, P 3 101 purposes and some of your Petitioners have at least 500 cattle fattening on the said Block'. In view of this, it was claimed that 'any proposed alienation should be only in respect of the timber so that the land will at the expiration of the term of cutting rights revert to the natives. ,85 The petitioners submitted that they had been 'unjustly treated in being forced to part with the land which has been handed down to them by their ancestors'. It was further claimed that those owners who had consented to the sale, and the 'public interest', would not be 'affected or prejudiced' by the cutting out of the interests of the dissenting owners. The petitioners requested that the House of Representatives 'take immediate steps to pass such legislation as will ... enable your Petitioners to have their interests partitioned by the Native Land Court. '86 On 22 October 1924, an enquiry was made to the Native Department as to whether the Board could commence paying the beneficiaries of the sale of Matahina A3R87 The reply advised that payments be delayed until the result of the petition was known.88 On 29 October; the Native Department was informed that the owners of Matahina A3B were 'clamouring' for the purchase money, and it was again asked if this money could be distributed;89 The Board was told that the petitioners had been 'left to their legal remedy', and that payments could therefore proceed.90 On 30 October, the Native Affairs Committee reported that, 'as the petitioners have not exhausted their legal remedies, the Committee has no recommendation to make with regard to this petition. ,91 It is not clear what the legal remedies of the petitioners were. On 27 September, the President of the Wairiki District Maori Land Board had signed Memoranda of Transfer as agent of the owners of Matahina A3R92 A total of £38,314 was paid for the block, which was transferred to George Syme Jm and George Syme and Co Ltd in two portions, with areas of 4789 acres 2 roods. 10.8 Summary In July 1914, meetings of the owners of Matahina AID; A2, and A3 were held to consider offers to purchase the blocks made by private interests. At these meetings, resolutions to sell were carried by owners whose combined interests were a only small proportion of the total number of shares held in each block. It was resolved that a 5000 acre portion of 85 Ibid 86 Ibid, p 4 87 'Wairiki' to 'Native Wellington', 22 October 1924, MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 33911924, NA Wellington 88 'Native Wellington' to 'Wairiki', 22 October 1924, MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 339/1924, NA Wellington 89 'Wairiki' to 'Native Wellington', 29 October 1924, MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 339/1924, NA Wellington 90 'Native Wellington' to 'Wairiki', 29 October 1924, MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 339/1924, NA Wellington 91 Report on Petition No 339/1924, 30 October 1924, AJHR, 1924,1-3, p 40 92 Memorandum of Transfer, file 4025, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua; Memorandum of Transfer, file 4026, in file 8850, Matahina A3B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 102 Matahina AID was to be sold, and the whole of Matahina A2 and A3. All of this land was covered in forest. In November 1914, Matahina A3 was partitioned into Matahina A3A and A3B. Matahina A3A, with an area of about 421_ acres, contained the interests of those owners who dissented from the resolution to sell. The purchasers experienced difficulties in raising capital to meet the purchase payments, and were granted an extension of time to make the required payments. In June 1916, it was agreed at a meeting of owners that a further extension of time be given to the purchasers. In March 1917, when the terms of this extension were not met, a lawyer claiming to represent a significant number of owners requested that the Board cancel the resolutions. This request was ignored, and in September 1918, the President of the Board granted the purchasers further time to complete the transactions without consulting the owners. Early in 1920, the Commissioner of State Forests was offered Matahina A2, A3, and AID for a sum which was about five times greater than that which the purchasers had agreed to pay the Maori owners some six years earlier. At this time, the. purchase money had still not been paid to the Board, and the transactions remained incomplete. In April 1920, following advice from the Solicitor General, a prohibition of alienation was placed on the blocks, except alienation to the Crown. There was concern that the purchasers had broken statutory restrictions by acquiring individual interests in the Matahina lands and then subsequently acting as a syndicate. Requests for the lifting of the prohibition were rejected, and in July 1921 a commission of inquiry was held into the purchase of the Matahina lands. The Commissioner, ET Hawthorne, found that although the purchasers had acted illegally, they had not done so deliberately. The prohibition was lifted in December 1921. In 1923, following an informal meeting of owners, the sales of Matahina A2 and the 5000 acres of AID were completed. It is unclear whether the owners were paid interest for the period between 1914 and 1923. The proposed sale of Matahina A3B was not completed, possibly because the owners' wished to pursue offers made by other interested parties. In July 1914, a resolution to sell Matahina A3B to different purchasers was carried at a meeting of the block's owners. A number of owners, who held about 20 percent of the shares in the block, dissented from the sale" and filed a,petition requesting that they be allowed to partition their interests. The petition was unsuccessful, and the whole of Matahina A3B was included in the sale. 103 11. Sale of 22,000 acres of Matahina AID to Kotahi Lands Limited, 1927 11.1 Introduction The Waiariki Land Board alienation file which concerns the sale of a large area of Matahina AID in 1927 appears to have been either lost or destroyed.! However, a schedule of the other lands belonging to the owners of Matahina AID, which was prepared prior to the sale, has been located. The portion of Matahina AID purchased by Kotahi Lands Limited is shown in Map 9. Previous desrciptions of the block describe this land to be barren, without any significant stands of timber. It appears that the land was purchased for afforestation purposes. 11.2 Sale to Kotahi Lands Limited On 6 October 1927, the President of the Waiariki Land Board signed a Memorandum of Transfer as agent for the owners of Matahina A1D.2 The document details that, in . accordance with a resolution passed at a meeting of owners, 22,154 acres 27 perches of Matahina AID was transferred to Kotahi Lands Limited for the sum of £5550 18s 5d. This equates to a value of five shillings an acre. Without examing the alienation file, it is unclear whether the purchase price deviated from the government valuation of the land. In confirming the resolution to sell the land to Kotahi Lands Limited, the Waiariki Land Board did not appear to be concerned that the alienation would greatly diminish the lands held by many of the owners. The schedule of other lands shows that there were some 965 owners at the time of the sale, and that 420, or about 45 percent, possessed no interests in other lands.3 Following the sale to Kotahi Lands Limited, the Ngati Awa owners retained just 1,475 acres of Matahina AID. Aside from this, the only remaining Ngati Awa land in the Matahina block was Matahina A3A and the two urupa,Matahina A4and.A5. On 8 March 1932, the Under Secretary of the Native Department wrote to the Registrar of . theWaiariki Land Board, requesting to know how such a large area of land had been acquired in one portion.4 In his reply, the Registrar explained that the land had been purchased for afforestation purposes under section 200 of the Native Land Act 1909.5 This provided that the limitation on the area of land which could be acquired did not apply in cases where the land was of such poor quality that it was unprofitable to work an area less than 3000 acres. ! The reference number of this file is one of the following: 4308, 4309, 4310, 4311, and 4312. None ri these files are in place at the Waiariki District Maori Land Court, nor are they included among the files which have been transferred to National Archives, Auckland. 2 Transfer 231253, LINZ, Hamilton 3 Schedule of Other Lands Owned, undated, file 5310B, Matahina A ID alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 4 Under Secretary, Native Department, to Registrar, WDMLB, 8 March 1932, file 5306, in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 5 Registrar, WDMLB, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 14 March 1932, file 5306, in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 104 Map 9 Transactions Affecting Matahina AID N timber. cutting rights sold to Kauri Timber Company, 1962 (known as AID2 from 1966) A3 leased to William Davies, 1936; renewed by Hubert Back, 1957 (known as AIDI from 1966) ffJ ~ C< Ale g ~ ~ .~ o 2 4 6 kilometres 105 12. Transactions Affecting the Remaining Ngati Awa Portions of Matahina AID, 1936-1967 12.1 Lease of Part Matahina A1D to we Davies, 1936 The portion of Matahina AID (Lots 1 & 2, DP 21804) which in 1936 was leased to William Clement Davies is shown in Map 9. Like the file concerning the sale to Kotahi Lands Limited, the Waiariki Land Board alienation file which deals with the lease to Davies was not located during the course of the research for this report. 1 Without having examined the file relating to the lease, it is impossible to provide any details concerning the meeting of owners, or exactly what Davies .intended to use the land for. Located beside the Rangitaiki River, and 'including a small island in the river, the total area leased to Davies was 258 acres 2 roods 30 perches. This land was probably quite fertile in comparison to the rest of Matahina AID, and it may have been because of this that it was excluded from the land sold to Kotahi Lands Limited. It is unclear whether prior to the lease to Davies the land was being farmed by its Ngati Awa owners. It seems very likely that it was for this purpose that the land was acquired by Davies, who is described as a farmer in the Memorandum of Lease. 2 The Memorandum of Lease was signed by the President of the Waiariki Land Board on 1 August 1936. It details that the period of the lease was for 21 years, and that it had commenced on 1 April 1936. The yearly rental was stated to be five shillings an acre for the first seven·years, seven shillings an acre for the next seven years, and 10 shillings an acre for the fmal seven years. There were several conditions of the lease. The lessee was required to comply with the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Act 1928, and all 'rates taxes charges and other assessments' were to be paid by the lessee during the term of the lease. The lessee was expected to use and manage the land in a 'a proper and husbandmanlike manner', and all existing improvements were to be maintained. At the·. conclusion ofthe term of the lease, all . improvements would become the property of the lessors. The lessee was granted the right to renew the lease for a further 21 years. Upon renewal, the annual rent was to be five percent of the unimproved value of the land, but could not be less than two shillings an acre. 12.2 Renewal of Lease to HF Back, 1957 In 1957, when the term of the lease expired, it was held by Hubert Francis Back Under the provisions of the Maori Land Amendment Act 1952, the Maori Land Boards were 1 A reference number for a file relating to a lease, 2/364, is given in the alienation file index at the Waiariki District Maori Land Court. This file must concern the lease to Davies, which except for the lease of the small area to Elwarth, was the only lease held over an area of Matahina AID. The file 2/364 was not in place at the Waiariki District Maori Land Court, nor was it included among the files which have been transferred to National Archives, Auckland, 2 Memorandum of Lease 16179, LlNZ, Hamilton 106 abolished and their functions spread between the Maori Land Court and Maori Trustee. Back applied to the Waiariki District Maori Land Court on 12 March 1958 for an order directing the Maori Trustee to renew the lease. 3 Back proposed to rent the land for 12s 6d an acre, or five percent of the unimproved value, whichever was the greater. A valuation carried out in June 1957 gave the unimproved value of the land to be £2,275, determining that it would be leased for 12s 6d an acre. Improvements were valued to be £1,545, giving a capital value of £3,820. On 2 July 1958, the Court considered Back's application and ordered that the Maori Trustee execute a renewal of the lease.4 Black was required to pay the Maori Trustee a fee of £ 10 to cover the expense of· a proposed inspection of the land. This inspection was to be made in 1962, and was required because an inspection at the time of the renewal had found that Back was not satisfactorily dealing with noxious weeds on the land. The minute book records that the situation was not deemed seriouscenough to justify a.refusal of the application for renewal.s On 26 November 1958, a Memorandum of Lease was signed by agents of the Maori Trustee.6 The conditions of the lease were the same as that which had been executed in 1936, except that the lessee was given no right of renewal. 12.3 Sale of Timber Cutting Rights for Part Matahina A1D to Kauri Timber Company Limited, 1962 In 1962, the timber cutting rights were sold for the land held by Ngati Awa in the west of Matahina .A 1D. This area, containing 1231 acres 1 rood 14 perches, is shown in Map 9. An application to summon a meeting of owners to consider the sale of the timber cutting rights of this land was first made in February 1957 by the Kauri Timber Company/ A meeting was subsequently held on 2 May 1957 at Kokohinau Marae, Te Teko.8 There were 74 owners present at this meeting and another 14 represented by proxy. During the course of the meeting, a number of owners stated that they considered that the various prices offered for the different timber types were not high enough.. Others argued against the sale because they thought that it would be· more profitable to develop the land themselves. Addressing the meeting on behalf of his wife, Tame Keno stated that he thought the Lands and Survey Department was developing land adjacent to the block, and asserted that 'it would be better for the owners to incorporate and develop the block themselves.,9 Responding to this, the representative of the Kauri Company Limited argued that: 3 Application for Renewal of Lease, 12 March 1958, file 10182, found in file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 4 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 33, 2 July 1958, P 45 S Ibid 6 Memorandum of Lease S379633, LINZ, Hamilton 7 Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 28 February 1957, file 10182, found in file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 8 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 2 May 1957, file 10182, found in file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 9 Ibid 107 The question of developing this block would be very costly indeed, and at present you have no finance with which to commence development operations. I doubt very much whether the Maori Affairs Department would assist you very much for some years, owing to the isolation of this block. Furthermore, there is no legal access, and to put in fonned roads, would require a terrific amount of money, whereas my client company [are] at present milling adjacent land to this of yours, [and] have already roaded the area over which they have a grant. 10 The owners unanimously voted against the proposed resolution, which was defeated by 435 shares to 178 shares. On 31 July 1959, a second meeting was held at Kokohinau Marae to consider three applications for the sale of timber cutting rights.lI The applications were made by the Kauri Timber Company; the Ngapuna Timber Company, and LB Smith and AP Smith. The meeting was attended by 121 owners, and another 32 were· represented by proxy. At the opening of the meeting, the owners were asked by the Chairman to decide whether they were in favour of a sale or not. The owners were read a letter written by a Mr Linton, who was described to be a Land Utilisation Officer for the Department of Maori Affairs. In this letter, it was stated that there was only a slim prospect that the Maori Affairs Department or Lands and Survey Department would develop Matahina AID in the foreseeable future. Following this, the meeting was· adjourned to allow the owners to consider the matter of whether they would sell the timber cutting rights. When the meeting resumed, the Chairman was advised that the owners had resolved to sell. The applicants then proceeded to detail the timber prices which they were offering the owners. During the course of this, the representative of the Kauri Timber Company, a Mr Barrett, told the meeting that if his company's offer was accepted it would be able to continue to provide employment to the 45 Maori who were working at the company's Edgecumbe Mill. He further stated that employment would be given to Maori owners of the block without having to dismiss existing employees. Barrett introduced the mill manager to the meeting, Mr Civil, claiming that he would be well known to the owners because of the assistance he had given in tribal committee matters. After further discussion, and adjustment of prices, a vote was taken on the offers made by the Kauri Timber Company and the Ngapuna Timber Company. The prices offered by both companies were the same: Totara and Tanekaha 35 s per 100 feet board measurement Matai and Kahikatea 25s per 100 feet board measurement Rimu and Miro 25s per 100 feet board measurement Tawa 7s per 100 feet board measurement Hinau and all other species 5s per 100 feet board measurement A £5000 deposit was to be paid to the owners, and the term was 2_ years, with a right of renewal of for 2_ years. The owners voted in favour of the Kauri Timber Company by 290 10 Ibid 11 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 31 July 1959, file 10182, found in file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 108 ------:! shares to 383 shares. By 'special desire', the owners then unanimously passed the following resolution: (1) That the block be incorporated under Section 270 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 for the purposes of farming. (2) That the royalty money shall be applied in the following manner: 50 percent to the owners by distribution 40 percent for farming purposes, and 10 percent for education On 2 October 1959, the Court considered the Kauri Timber Company's application for confirmation of the resolution passed at Te Teko on 31 August. 12 The dissenting owners who had voted for the Ngapuna Timber Company were represented by a Mr. Dillon, who argued that flaws in the voting procedure had-resulted in·ctheresolution wrongly having been passed in favour of the Kauri Timber Company. Dillon told the Court that Karaitiana Ngaharare and Ereatara Hunia, 'one of the major owners', had arrived during voting. Both of these owners were represented by proxy by a Mr Park for the Ngapuna Timber Company, but upon their arrival they had been allowed to withdraw their proxies, even though voting had commenced. Dillon detailed that Ereatara Hunia had been brought to the meeting in a truck, and it was there that his vote had been· recorded because he was too ill to join the meeting. Dillon also told the Court that certain owners who had expressed an allegiance to the Kauri Timber Company were standing near the desk where votes were recorded. He claimed that 'this had an influence.' This was also stated by the interpreter who had attended the meeting, Derek Asher, who told the Court that 'the recognized leader of the Pah', Eruera Manuera, 'was standing right by the table' and had 'an influence on the people.' This was later disputed by the recording officer, Bertram Kingi. The Court delivered its decision on 30 October. \3 It found that Kingi had been wrong in permitting Hunia and Ngaharare to withdraw their proxies and then vote. 14 The Court declared that either or both companies couldlodgeapplications for a fresh meeting without fee within one month. It was stipulated that the prices ·offered were not to be less than those in the resolution. IS In its judgement, the Court stated that there were difficulties in the case which prevented it from simply reversing the resolution in favour of the Ngapuna Timber Company: The Court would on the facts· before it have difficulty in deciding this question as those two [Hunia and Ngaharare] having arrived there is no evidence as to whether they being present and expressing the wish that their votes be cast for the Kauri Company, he [park] would in spite of such wish have voted for the Ngapuna Company. . . . There is the further aspect that the Court is reluctant to conftrm sales purely on proxies when, as here, those present at the meeting voted strongly against the Ngapuna Company and possibly had good reason for so voting such being that a number of owners work at the Kauri mill at Te Teko which mill[sic] close unless more cutting is obtained.16 12 Rotorua Maori Land Court minute book 108, 2 October 1959, pp 319-326 \3 Ibid, 30 October 1959, pp 336-338 14 Ibid, P 337 IS Ibid, P 338 16 Ibid, pp 337-338 109 Applications to summon a meeting of owners were respectively lodged by the Kauri Timber Company and Ngapuna Timber Company in November 1959 and January 1960.17. The prices offered by the companies were the same as those given in the resolution which was voted upon at the previous meeting. The convening of a meeting to consider the applications appears to have been delayed in order to allow the Maori Appellate Court to consider appeals made by both companies against the Court's refusal to confirm a resolution. The appeals were heard on 5 April 1960, but it was not until 1 November that they were dismissed. 18 The meeting was finally held on 24 January 1961 at Kokohinau Marae. 19 The minutes of the meeting record that a representative of the Ngapuna Timber Company withdrew the Company's application prior to the opening of the meeting. There were 61 owners present at the meeting, and another 36 represented by 'proxy; A list of owners prepared at this time shows that there were over 2,000 individuals with an interest in the land;2p During the course of the meeting, the Kauri Timber Company's representatives agreed to raise the price for tawa to eight shillings. One of the owners, Monika Savage, requested the increase , after telling the meeting that other companies were paying 8s 6dfortawa. She claimed that half the timber on the block was tawa. Responding to another owner, Mr Barrett acknowledged that the Ngapuna Timber Company had been responsible for the increase in price. However, he stated that he viewed their withdrawal as an indication that 'the prices were really too high.' The resolution to sell the timber cutting rights to the Kauri Timber company was carried unanimously, with only two owners dissenting. Following the vote, one of the owners, a Mr Grace, asked whether it would possible for the Company to donate one totara tree to the Kokohinau Marae. He explained the timber would be carved as a replacement for old and damaged carvings. Barrett agreed to the proposal, and stated that the timber would be sawn to the correct dimensions and transported to the marae. On 9 February 1961, the Registrar of the Court wrote to the Conservator of Forests, requesting that the necessary ministerial consent be granted to the proposed sale.21 He also 'asked for an appraisal of the value and quantity ,·ofthe· timber. Ministerial consent was granted on 6 April, and details of the value and quantity of timber were .subsequently provided.22 Forest Service values for the area were· found to be· 'considerably below the " resolution rates' . On the basis of the estimated quantity of timber, it was calculated that the owners should receive £7613 for the sale of the timber cutting rights. 17 Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 27 November 1959, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua; Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 9 January 1960, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 18 Order of the Maori Appellate Court Dismissing Appeal, I November 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 19 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 24 January 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 20 Schedule of Owners, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 21 Registrar, WDMLC, to Conservator of Forests, New Zealand Forest Service, 9 February 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 22 Consent to Sale of Maori Owned Timber, 6 April 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua; Conservator of Forests, New Zealand Forest Service, to District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, undated, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua; Conservator of Forests, New Zealand Forest Service, to District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, 11 October 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 110 On 29 September 1961, the resolution to sell the timber cutting rights to the Kauri Timber Company was confirmed by the COurt. 23 Under the terms of the resolution, the grant was for a period of 2_ years, with a right of renewal for 2_ years, A schedule appended to the order confirming the resolution detailed that a deposit of £5000 was to be paid before 1 January 1962, and that the balance of the £7613 was to be paid in four half yearly instalments.24 The schedule also stated that 15 percent of the rimu, matai, miro, and kahikatea should be sold to the Maori Affairs Department, if required, for Maori housing. This timber was to be sold at North Island prices, less 10 percent for trade and cash discounts. On 3 September 1962, the grant was transferred to Fletcher Trust and Investment Company Limited, which had purchased the assets of the Kauri Timber Company.2S 12.4 Partition of Remaining Ngati Awa,Holdings-in Matahina AID, 1966 On 19 August 1966, the two remaining areas ofland held by Ngati Awa in Matahina AID were formally partitioned.26 The area in the east of the block, lots 1 and 2 of DP 21804, which contained 258 acres 2 roods 30 perches, was named Matahina A1Dl. The area in the west of the block, which contained 1231 acres 1 rood 14 perches, was named Matahina AlD2. The partition was not made in order to separate the interests of the owners of the remaining Ngati Awa portions ofMatahina AID. It is detailed in the partition orders that both blocks were owned by 2,172 individuals.27 12.5 Inclusion of Matahina AID2 and D2 in the Tarawera Forest Project, and the Subsequent Sale of Tarawera 1 to Tasman Forests Limited, 1968 In 1966, Matahina A1D2 and Matahlna D2, the remaining Ngati Rangitihi land, were amalgamated with 36 other blocks to form Tarawera 1. The amalgamation process involved several meetings of the owners of the blocks which were involved in the project. The Tarawera For 12.6 Summary Followingthe sale of almost 22,000 acres to Kotahi Lands Limited in 1927, Ngati Awa were left owning only 1490 acres of Matahina AID. This land was contained in two lots; one in the east of the block, which had an area of about 258_ acres, and the other in the 23 Rotorua Maori Land Court minute book 113,29 September 1961, pp 389 24 Order Confmning Resolution of Owners, 29 September 1961, file 11035, Matahina AID leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 2S Memorandum of Lease, 11 October 1962, BBLA 4945 1222a 13-93-1, Matahina AID lease, National Archives, Auckland 26 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 41, 19 December 1966, p 73B 27 Partition Order, 19 August 1966, BOF 2481B box 213, Matahina AID2 titles, WDMLC. Rotorua 28 L Harvey, 'Tarawera Forest Project', August 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc B25); John Third, 'Tarawera Forests', September 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc C4) 111 west of the block, which had an area of about 1231_ acres. In 1936, following a meeting of owners, the area in the east was leased to WC Davies for a period of 21 years. This lease was renewed in 1957 by HF Back. In 1962, after a series of meetings of owners, the timber cutting rights of the area in the west were finally sold to the Kauri Timber Company. In 1966, the two areas of Matahina AID which remained in Ngati Awa ownership were formally partitioned into Matahina AIDl and AlD2. Matahina AID2, in the west, was subsequently amalgamated with other blocks to form Tarawera l, which in 1968 was sold to Tasman Forests Limited. 112 13. Sale of Matahina A3A to Whakatane Board Mills, 1969, and Sale of Timber Cutting Rights to Uepango Sawmilling Company, 1949 13.1 Early Attempts to Purchase Land and Timber Cutting Rights On 7 March 1924, a meeting of the owners of Matahina A3A was held at Te Teko to consider an application to purchase the block made by Frederick Matthews.l The owners were offered an amount defmed by a special government valuation, which gave the capital value of the land to be £600. 2 The timber on the land was valued at £500, and the land's unimproved value was given to be £100. According to the valuation, there were no improvements to the land. The owners rejectedthe proposed resolution. Another meeting of owners was held on 31 July 1937. At this meeting, the owners considered an application made by Thomas Davies, who proposed that the land be either sold to him, or leased for a term of 21 years. There were 24 owners either present or represented by proxy.3 One of the owners, Eramiha Neke, told the Court that he did not wish to sell or lease the land because it was 'the last of the Matahinas', and should be 'left as a monument to the elders of the tribe.' Neke claimed that the owners desired to hold on to the block 'for development purposes.,4 The owners voted against a resolution to lease the land to Davies, there being 29 shares for the proposal and 56 against. Some three years later, the owners met again to consider an application made by AP Smith, who proposed that all millable timber on the block be sold to him at a price determined by the State Forestry Department.s There were 11 owners present at the meeting. Eramiha Neke, the first owner to speak, told the meeting that he was not in favour of the resolution because 'the present war situation is very disturbing and the future of our country is uncertain'. At the conclusion of the meeting, Eramiha Neke stated that he wanted to 'wipe the resolution right out.' The only other owner to speak, Tene Heke, was also opposed to either selling or leasing the land. The resolution was defeated, with 20 shares in favour, and 1 28 /3 shares against. 13.2 Sale of Timber Cutting Rights to the Uepango Sawmilling Company Limited, 1949 - The next meeting of owners was held on 24 June 1947. At this meeting, the owners considered a proposal to sell the millable timber on the block to the Uepango Sawmilling 1 Coversheet, file 3939, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 2 Valuation, 4 February 1924, file 3939, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 3 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 31 July 1937, file 3939, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 4 Ibid S Minute on coversheet, file 6594, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 113 l ~--.------~------ Company·6 A condition of this proposal was that the sawn timber would be sold to Maori at 'current merchants' prices' for Maori housing purposes. Prior to the meeting, Judge Harvey informed the Board's Registrar that all of the timber would be useful, 'if we stick to our present housing programme.,7 Harvey stated that he had refused to call a meeting for a rival purchaser, 'because no better terms could be got, either by the owners or by the Department, than the arrangement with the Uepango Sawmilling Company Limited. ' Browne instructed the Registrar to assist the Company in getting proxies, explaining that 'when all is said and done we are on the market for timber and we cannot get better service than that proposed by the resolution.' There were 12 owners present at the meeting, which was held at Te Teko.8 No owners were represented by proxy. The first person to speak was RF Smith, who represented the Uepango Sawmilling Company. Smith told the meeting that he understood that it was the owner's wish to mill the timber themselves.' He then asked the Board's representative at the meeting, Mr Smith, to explain the views of the Maori Affairs· Department. Swift then proceeded to address the meeting: I was sent here by .Judge Harvey who is aware of the wish of the owners. Up to the present the Department has been building houses for Maoris at the rate of 58 a year. Its objective from now on is to build 120 houses a year and this can only be attained if there is timber available. The Uepango Co is prepared to let the Department have the whole cf its output from this block for Maori houses and this will play a very big part in meeting the requirements of Native housing. The Department defmitely requires this timber; but of course it is for you to say whether or not you approve of the sale thereoe The first of the owners to speak was Reweti Natana, who told the meeting that: This block was reserved by our elders from the sale of the main Matahina bush. Our elders had reasons for reserving this timber and I am not in favour of selling now. I am speaking on behalf of all the owners present.10 Eramiha Neke and Pakeha Tareispoke in support of this, although Tarei stated that the younger owners should be given an opportunity to discuss the matter iof working the block's timber. Following this, the owners voted against a motion to adjourn the meeting to allow this discussion to take place. EramihaNeke, who wasopposedto'.adjourning the meeting, stated that the 'matter of the owners milling the timber themselves is news to me.' Before the owners voted on the resolution, Smith reminded them that the timber was required for Maori housing, and that if the resolution was rejected, they might not get houses built. Responding to this, Eramiha Neke stated that, 'We have been living in houses all these years.' The meeting ended without the owners having voted. Smith had moved that the resolution be voted upon, but the proposal lapsed for want of a seconder. 6 Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 16 January 1947, file 8115, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 7 Harvey to Registrar, WDMLB, 30 May 1947, file 8115, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 8 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 24 June 1947, file 8115, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 114 ------, , On 18 February 1949, another meeting of owners was held at Te Teko to consider the following proposal to sell the block's timber to the Uepango Sawmilling Company: That all millable timber on the above block as appraised by the State Forest Department be sold to the Uepango Sawmilling Co Ltd at the following rates of royalty per 100 superficial feet: Matai 5/-, Rimu 3/6, Miro 3/6, Totara 12/-, Tawa and other secondary timber at State Forest valuation. Company to be granted five years with right of renewal for three years to remove the timber. 11 There were 45 owners either present of represented at the meeting. 12 Smith, the Company's representative, informed the owners that he was prepared to increase the prices for some of the timber types, and detailed the following rates: Rin1U and Miro 4s 6d per 100 superficial feet Totara -12s 6d per 100 superficial feet Smith also stated that the Company would be prepared to supply timber to the owners for housing purposes, and would give a 10 percent trade and cash discount. Reweti Natana responded on behalf of the owners. He explained that the matter had been considered, and that it had been decided that the Company could purchase the bush if it paid six shillings per 100 superficial feet for all of the timber. In reply, Smith told the meeting that: My Company has gone very fully into this matter and it cannot afford to pay more than the rates already offered. My Company owns adjoining bush and can work the timber on this block much cheaper than any other Company as it already has the necessary gear and mill there. This is the reason why it is able to increase its offer as above .. 13 The meeting was then addressed by Te Wairata Huriana, who stated that in November 1948 the owners had met with representatives of the Uepango Sawmilling Company and the Tunnicliffe Timber Company, and had resolved to sell the timber to the company which offered the highest price. He then declared that he was in favour of selling to the Uepango Sawmilling Company. The next speaker was Eramiha Neke, who told the meeting that Te Wairata Huriana's statement had been correct. He -declared himself to be in favour of the sale, and proceeded to move the resolution; The resolution had been amended to give the increased timber prices offered by Smith. It also -detailed that one third of the total royalty would be paid upon confirmation, and that the remainder would be paid in 10 equal half-yearly instalments. The resolution was seconded, and a vote was taken. The resolution was carried, with approximately 34_ shares in favour, and approximately 25 shares against. Following the voting, 21 owners signed a Memorial of Dissent. On 10 August 1949, the Court heard an application by the Uepango Sawmilling Company to confirm the resolution. 14 An objection to the application was made by Reweti Natana, who told the Court that he was opposed to the resolution, and did not wish to sell either 11 Application details on coversheet, file 8260, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 12 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 18 February 1949, file 8260, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 13 Ibid 14 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 28, 10 August 1949, P 387 115 the land or timber. He acknowledged that he had stated during the meeting that he agreed to a sale of the timber at six shillings per 100 feet, but claimed that 'the point 1 stressed at the meeting was over ruled.' Reweti Natana proceeded to explain his objection: 'I object because it is difficult to get timber for our houses now. It was stated that timber will be made available at any time but 1 mistrust the promise.' Smith, the Company's representative, told the Court that his company was prepared to make 20 percent of the timber available for Maori housing at discounted prices. Responding to this, Reweti Natana stated that, with this arrangement, he agreed to the resolution. The Court then confirmed the resolution, subject to 20 percent of the timber being made available for Maori housing. Ministerial consent was given to the sale of the Matahina A3A timber on 15 August 1950.15 An appraisal of the block's timber by the State Forest Service showed that £5970 was the total royalty to be paid by the Uepango SawmillingCompany.16 On 26 July 1951, the Secretary of the Company wrote to the Registrar of the Court;. informing him that a request had been made for timber to be supplied to the Tatuwai Tribal Committee. 17 The Registrar advised him that the timber should be treated as part of the agreed 20 percent quota, and that the tribal committee was responsible for payment. 18 13.3 Sale of Matahina A3A to Whakatane Board Mills, 1969 On 11 December 1961, an application was made by Whakatane Board Mills to summon a meeting of the owners of Matahlna A3A to consider a proposal to sell the block for £630. 19 A valuation had been carried out on 6 December, and it found Matahina A3A to have a capital value of £630. 20 There were deemed to be no improvements to the land, which was described to be 'faidy exposed', with 'undulating to broken hills'. The soil was described to consist of three to five inches of 'poor quality Tarawera ash gravel over deep free gravelly sand subsoil.' The valuation noted that the south east boundary of the block lay against the Whakatane Board Mills pine forest. It was remarked that approximately 100 acres adjacent to the forest 'comprises open'fem.country', .while the remainder of the block, some 321 acres, 'was stated to be 'in native bush which has been periodically milled over'. The valuation stated that the block could be suitably developed for !afforestation of grazing purposes. However, it was noted that the block had no legal access, and that physical access was gained only by forestry roads. 15 Consent to Sale of Maori Owned Timber, 6 April 1961, file 8261, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 16 Conservator of Forests, New Zealand State Forest Service, to Registrar, Department of Maori Affairs, 30 August 1950, file 8261, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 17 Secretary, Uepango Sawmilling Company, to Registrar, WDMLC, 26 July 1951, file 8261, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 18 Registrar, WDMLC, to Secretary, Uepango Sawmilling Company, 13 August 1951, file 8261, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 19 Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 11 December 1961, file 11685, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 20 Valuation, 7 December 1961, file 11685, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 116 ------1 The meeting of owners was held at Te Teko on 14 March 1962.21 There were 17 owners present. Representing Whakatane Board Mills, a Mr BuddIe told the meeting that the land was suitable for reforestation and little else. He stated that the company was prepared to raise the proposed purchase price from about £1 lOs an acre to £3 4s an acre, which matched the price that had been paid for adjacent land. This brought the proposed purchase price up to about £1,350. Kakaho Te Va, the first owner to speak, stated that he had never been in favour of selling the land, and that he considered the price offered to be 'out of all proportion' to what the land is worth. He thought that, given the area, the block could be divided into two farms. The next owner to speak, Henare Tarei, agreed with these comments, and mentioned the possibility of the land being joined with Omataroa 10 Incorporation. The meeting adjourned for the owners to consider the proposed sale. During the discussion, the Chairman of the meeting, PWPatrick, advised the·owners to .. consider 'the rating question, the fact that there was no access to the block and the poor prospect of obtaining finance from any source to carry out development.' He also told them that Matahina A3A was outside the fringe of the blocks to be incorporated with Omataroa 10, in which the owners also possessed an interest. Patrick then questioned the owners, and established that only five of the owners, who held minor shares, were willing to sell. He therefore proposed that a motion be passed rejecting the resolution. Kakaho Te Va responded to this by suggesting that, if there was a rating exemption, such a rejection might cause it to revoked. Instead, he moved that the land be sold for £50 an acre, a motion which was unanimously carried by the owners. Predictably, the representatives of Whakatane Board Mills declined the offer. On 11 September 1967, Whakatane Board Mills made another application to summon a meeting of the owners of Matahina A3A, this time to consider a proposal to sell the block for $5,200. 22 A valuation which had been carried out on 17 January had found the block to have a capital value of $4,570.23 The block was again considered to have no improvements. The meeting of owners was scheduled to be held at Te Teko. oni November.. However, a quorum was not established when the meeting was called, although ~19 owners were either present or represented by proxy. 24 Their combined interests, amounted to 19_ shares, less 1 25 . than 15 percent of the 135 / 21 shares held in the block. A rescheduled meeting of the owners was held on 31 January 1969. There were 19 owners present at the meeting, and another six represented by proxy.26 The combined interests of 21 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 18 February 1949, file 8260, found in file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 22 Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 11 September 1961, file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 23 Registrar, WDMLC, to East and Brewster, 18 September 1967, file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 24 NC Munro, record of adjourned meeting, undated, file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 25 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, I November 1968, file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 26 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, 31 January 1969, file 13916, Matahina A3A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 117 these owners amounted to about 40 shares, or about 30 percent of the total shares held in the block. The minutes of the meeting note that the applicant, Whakatane Board Mills, had been taken over by New Zealand Forest Products. Mr Brewster, representing the applicant, told the meeting that the proposed purchase price was 15 percent above the government valuation. He denied that his Company had purchased similar land for $20 an acre, but was prepared to offer the owners $15 an acre, which equated to a total purchase price of $6,1315. Speaking to the other owners, Kakaho Te Ua stated that: First of all, we must realise that there is no access. To reach our land we cross over the Company's property if they so agree. With this point in mind we should consider a reasonable price. $100 per acre is excessive. It is correct that Kawarau Blocks were sold at this figure but they were totally different· types of lands •. You· cannot· compare. them with our hilly block. I cannot understand why the Company did not ofi'er,$15 per acre in its application. This figure is far too low. I suggest $26 per acre. 27 Other owners, Taurua Natana, George Maki, and Tiki Hunia, agreed with this statement. The owners discussed what price they would accept for the land, and settled upon $26, which equated to a total purchase price of $10,959. This price was accepted by Brewster, and the owners proceeded to vote upon a resolution to sell the land at this price to Whakatane Board Mills. The resolution was unanimously carried. On 25 March 1969, the Court confmned the resolution, and on 14 May 1969 agents for the Maori trustee executed a Memorandum of Transfer on behalf of the owners.28 13.4 Remaining Ngati Awa Land Following the sale of Matahina A3A in 1969, the only Matahina land remaining in Ngati Awa ownership was Matahina AID2. In 1968, the two burial grounds, Matahina A4 and A5, were taken for the Matahina Power Project.29 Matahina A4 was required for the dam abutment, while Matahina A5 was required for the lake behind the dam and the riparian strip. The taking of land for the MatahinaPower Project has been examined by David Alexander. Compensation based on Government valuations was offered to the Maori Trustee, and this was accepted by him.30 Matahina AID2 is the only Matahina land which today remains in Ngati Awa ownership. 13.5 Summary In 1949, following a meeting of owners, the timber cutting rights of Matahina A3A were sold to Uepango Sawmilling Company. A condition of the resolution was that 20 percent 27 Ibid 28 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 45, 25 March 1969, p 349; Memorandum of Transfer S457052, LINZ, Hamilton 29 Proclamation of land taken for the development of water power (Rangitaiki River Power Scheme) in blocks 14 and 15, Rangitaiki Upper survey district, and blocks 2, 3, and 7, Rangitaiki Lower survey district, Whakatane County, 9 August 1968, New Zealand Gazette, 1968, no 53, pp 1399-1400 30 David Alexander, 'Matahina Power Project Including Te Mahoe Village & Rangitaiki 60c Core Material Quarry', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5), p 124 118 of the timber would be made available for Maori housing. In March 1962, and again in January 1969, the owners of Matahina A3A met to consider the sale of the block to Whakatane Board Mills Limited. At the latter meeting, a resolution to sell was carried by owners holding 30 percent of the total shares in the block. The block had no legal access, and this appears to have influenced the owners in making their decision. Following the sale of Matahina A3A, the only remaining Ngati Awa land in the original Matahina block was Matahina AID2. 119 14. Te Whaiti Paora's Campaign to Adjust the Southern Boundary of Matahina B 14.1 Introduction From 1885, when Mitchell's survey was carried-out, to 1920, Te Whaiti Paora protested that the line of the southern boundary of Matahina B had been incorrectly surveyed, and requested that it be redefined. The Court's order declared Matahina B to be bounded in the south 'by a line from the road West to the Rangitaiki, the Kaitangata cultivations to be included'. I Te Whaiti claimed that when the boundary was surveyed, it had deviated from the Court's order by excluding the Kaitangata cultivations from the block. In a letter written to the Chief Judge in 1901, Te Whaitiexplainedthat he had been absent when the survey was made. 2 In an attempt to get the boundary resurveyed, he came before the Court on several occasions, and in 1918 and 1920 he lodged petitions concerning the,matter. 14.2 Early Correspondence Relating to Te Whaiti Paora's Complaint On 25 July 1900, JW Browne, Registrar of the Court, wrote to the Surveyor General, S Percy Smith, on the matter of Te Whaiti's objection to the 1885 survey.3 A copy of this letteris in the file of Te Whaiti's 1918 petition. Within the letter, transcriptions are given of earlier correspondence on the matter. Browne noted that Te Whaiti had complained about the survey 'as far back as 1885', when he had raised the matter with Judge Puckey. On 19 September 1885, Puckey wrote to Percy Smith, who was then the Assistant Surveyor General: It was the intention· of the Court that a kainga should be included in the portion Replying to this letter, Percy Smith asserted, with no apparent concern for the position of the cultivations, that the boundary line had been correctly surveyed in accordance with the Court's order: As far as the information given on the original map and schedule of orders are concerned the order has been carried out exactly - and map approved and ready for· issue I Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 2, 19 February 1884, p 267 2 Te Whaiti Paora to Chief Judge, Native Land Court, 24 February 1901, MA 1 1920/277, Petition No 59/1920, NA Wellington 3 Browne to Percy Smith, 25 July 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 4 Puckey to Percy Smith, 19 September 1885, in Browne to Percy Smith, 25 July 1900, MA 1 19191460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington S Percy Smith to Puckey, 24 September 1885, in Browne to Percy Smith, 25 July 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 120 Puckey wrote to Chief Judge MacDonald on the matter on 15 May 1888. There can be no doubt the objections should have been made by the Natives at the time of survey. Nevertheless I think the alteration should be made. The Native owners should pay the additional cost and should be told SO.6 Chief Judge Seth Smith later recommended that: The best course will be to exhibit the plan at Ohinemutu Court and put a notice in the Gazette that the Court will hear objections on a day to be fixed. If the persons who now complain undertake to pay for the survey the alteration can be made.7 No action was taken following Seth Smith's recommendation. It is likely that Te Whaiti objected to the decision that the costs of resurvey were to be met by the owners, especially given that Puckey had acknowledged that the survey had -excluded the cultivations. The opinion of the Court officials appears to have been that the owners deserved to pay for the resurvey because of their failure to point out-the error at the time the survey was carried-out. 14.3 Te Whaiti Paora's Objection Before the Court As mentioned in section 7 of this report, Te Whaiti Paora raised his objection to the boundary line on 30 January 1891 when the Court heard Mitchell's application to have the Matahina blocks charged with survey costs. In response, Mitchell acknowledged that 'the surveyor may not have included all the cultivations', even though 'he did carry out the boundaries given by the COurt'.8 Mitchell handed in a letter to the Court, by Percy Smith, which stated that: I can only inform you that nothing has been done since the order made by the Court was efficiently carried out by the surveyor. It rests entirely with the Court now to order any alteration it may think fit. 9 The Court declared that the matter was to be adjourned. On 8 August 1900, Percy Smith wrote to Chief Judge Davy ,'asking if there would be any difficulty with the titles of Matahina B and the adjacent block, Matahina AID, if the boundary was altered to satisfy Te Whaiti.lo He explained that Te Whaiti, who had seen him more than once on the matter, would have to pay the cost of the survey first. In reply, Davy stated that there would be no difficulty with titles, but advised that the alteration be made after an enquiry before the Court. 1I He suggested that Te Whaiti make an application under the provisions of the Native Land Court Act 1894. 6 Puckey to MacDonald, 15 May 1888, in Browne to Percy Smith, 25 July 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 7 Seth Smith to unknown, undated, in Browne to Percy Smith, 25 July 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 8 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 4,30 January 1891, p 204 9 Ibid 10 Percy Smith to Davy, 8 August 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 11 Davy to Percy Smith, 28 August 1900, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 121 On 28 January 1903, the Court heard an application made by Te Whaiti under section 38 of the 1894 Act for an order directing a correction of the boundaries of Matahina B. Te Whaiti told the Court that he wished to have the boundaries altered so as to include the Kaitangata cultivations. 12 Wharepapa Peita also spoke in support of the application. The Court then heard objections. Penetito Hawea asserted that the survey had been made as it was because the surveyor had been unable to include all of the award without exceeding the 1,500 acres it was to contain.13 He claimed that Te Whaiti had had no cultivations at Kaitangata when the award was made. Later, however, he told the Court that 'the Kaitangata cultivations are within the boundary Tho the land ... to the South is also called Kaitangata.'14 He claimed that all Ngati Awa objected to the proposed alteration. Timi Waata, who also spoke in opposition to the application, supported Penetito's statements. He claimed, incorrectly, that Ngati Awa had paid the survey costs for Matahina B when the 6,000 acres had been partitioned for Mitchell. 15 On the 11 August, the Court heard evidence on the matter from Henry Mitchell, who had arranged the survey of the block. Mitchell told the Court: I could not say whether it is correct that there were Kaitangata cultivations within the line as surveyed, and also outside the line, to the South. Brigham [the surveyor] discussed the matter with me, years after, when the dispute had arisen. The position he took up was that the objections were groundless. 16 Judge Edger reported on the enquiry on 15 August. 17 Noting that the evidence 'was very conflicting', he stated that it seemed clear that some cultivations in the locality of Kaitangata had been included within the boundaries of Matahina B. However, he considered that it was not clear that there were also cultivations at Kaitangata south of the survey line. Remarking on Judge Puckey's opinion that the cultivations had not been included, Edger argued that: The plan that was before him shows a pencil line running to the mouth of the Kaitangata stream; but the verbal directions do not say that the survey is to be taken to the mouth eX that stream, butonly that it is to run to the Rangitaiki river.18 In conclusion, Edger stated that: The real point is - Have the cultivations intended by the Court, been included or not? I have not been able to form any opinion of that question. . . . I do not recommend any alteration of the line. I am not satisfied that the circumstances of the case require it. I do not think any more satisfactory evidence can be obtained. It is twenty years since the award was made. The land is very poor, probably not worth the cost of an amended survey. 19 12 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 5, 28 January 1903, p 236 13 Ibid, P 237 14 Ibid, P 238 15 Ibid, P 237 16 Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 47, 11 August 1903, P 134 17 Report Upon Enquiry, 15 August 1903, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918, NA Wellington 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 122 ',->- '-'-' '-'--''-'-'-~-- ...~,~".,~,------~-~-----~-.- .....-.--,-,--- ~-~-~------. ---- - _. ------~~---~-~------~.-- ~ ... -_ ------~-... -- On 23 November 1903, Penetito Hawea came before the Court, requesting that Judge Edger's decision be announced again. He explained that: Trouble arose over this matter, after the enquiry here in Feb last. Te Whaiti Paora began to put up a fence & leased the land to a European. I was advised to pull it down. I did not do so but awaited the decision of the C Judge?O Penetito requested that the Court allow a period of time for the fence to be removed, after which, he stated, he would claim it if it still stood. Te Whaiti Paora, who was also present, told the Court that he would remove the fence as requested. On 22 November 1907, the Court heard another application by Te Whaiti Paora under section 38 of the 1894 Act to have the southern boundary of Matahina B altered. After hearing a small amount of evidence, the Court delivered the following decision:· This matter has been before Judge Edger who held an exhaustive enquiry and then reported that he saw no valid reason for making any alteration in the boundary. Weare of opinion that Te Whaiti's object is to get a larger share of ... the land, which is not fair to the owners of the adjoining block. It has not been shown that Te Whaiti suffers in any way. His kaingas near Kaitangata seems to be a myth and his contention that the boundary should be altered is unsupported. Therefore we left the matter as Judpe Edger left it and make no recommendation that the Southern boundary ofB be altered.2 14.4 Te Whaiti Paora's Petitions, 1918 and 1920 On 9 October 1918, Te Whaiti Paora and eight others signed a petition addressed to Apirana Ngata. The petition requested a cancellation of the survey of Matahlna B2: In this instant, the law has been disregarded, and our homes, cultivations and burial grounds have been taken from us. For these reasons we desire that this matter be referred back to the Native Land Court for readjustment. 22 This petition appears to have concerned the 1907 Court order, whereby the Crown was awarded 513 along the southern boundary. However, the Crown's interest had not been surveyed by 1918, when the petition was lodged. In considering the·petition, it seems that the Native Affairs Committee thought that it concerned the issue of the exclusion of the Kaitangata cultivations. The material in the file concerning the petition entirely deals with this matter. On 29 October 1919, the Native Affairs Committee reported that it had 'no recommendation to make with regard to this petition. ,23 On 30 June 1920, Te Whaiti signed a second petition, this time addressed to the members of the House of Representatives. 24 This petition did concern the 1885 survey, with Te Whaiti stating that he 'and other owners of the Ngatihanua[sic] Tribe have suffered an injustice by reason ofthe Southern boundary of the said Block not including the kainga on 20 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 8, 23 November 1903, p 35 21 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 9, 22 November 1907, p 238 22 Petition ofTe Whaiti Paora and others, MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 51/1918, NA Wellington 23 Report on Petition No 5111918, 29 October 1919, AJHR, 1919,1-3, P 14 24 Petition ofTe Whaiti Paora, MA 1 1920/277, Petition No 59/1920, NA Wellington 123 ______------1 the southern side of the said Block. ,25 It was prayed that legislation would be passed directing the Court to hold an enquiry into the matter of the boundaries of Matahina B. The Native Affairs Committee considered that the petition ought to be referred to the Minister of Lands to ascertain the cost of resurvey, and if possible, the boundary adjusted. 26 It is unclear why this decision was reached in 1920, when the matter had earlier been left open. The Chief Surveyor of the Auckland District wrote to the Surveyor General on 9 December 1920, commenting on the petition.27 The Chief Surveyor stated that, in order to estimate the cost of resurvey, the boundaries of the block would have to be decided upon by the Court. He thought that legislation would be necessary to enable the Court to examine the merits of the case. There is no. evidence to suggest that another .enquiry into the matter was held by the Court, and it appears that the southern boundary of Matahina B was never altered. 14.5 Summary Following the 1885 survey, Te Whaiti Paora complained that the survey had not correctly followed the Court's order. He claimed that cultivations at Kaitangata were wrongly excluded from Matahina B. Te Whaiti brought the issue before the Native Land Court in 1891, 1903, and 1907, but these attempts to have the boundary altered by an order of the Court were unsuccessful. The Court considered that there was no clear evidence indicating that the Kaitangata cultivations had not been included, although Henry Mitchell could not assure the Court that they had been. It was considered that Te Whaiti suffered in no way from the existing boundary. Te Whaiti lodged petitions regarding the matter in 1918 and 1920, the latter causing the Native Affairs Committee to recommend that, if possible, the boundary be adjusted. There is no evidence suggesting that the boundary was ever altered. 25 Ibid 26 Report on Petition No 59/1920, 3 November 1920, AJHR, 1920,1-3, P 38 27 Chief Surveyor, Auckland, to Surveyor General, 9 December 1920, Lands and Survey file 20/1172, LINZ, Hamilton 124 ------1 _ I- ______~_~ 15. Sale of 587 acres of Matahina B2 to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, 1931, and Partition of Remaining 400 acres, 1932 15.1 Sale to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, 1931 On 11 February 1926, an application was made to summon a meeting of the owners of Matahina 2B to consider a proposal to sell the block to Michael Cotter at a price equivalent to a special government valuation.) This valuation had been carried out on 8 February. It gave the capital value of the 987 acre block to be £250 acres, which equates to a value of approximately 5s 1d an acre. 2 The block was deemed to have no improvements. The meeting of owners was held on 15 December 1926 at Murupara. There were five owners present at the meeting, and another two ·represented.by,theirtrustees~ Te Whaiti Paora was one of the owners who was present. A list of the owners of Matahina B2 prepared at this time detailed that there was a total of 74 owners, who held 987 shares.3 The owners who attended or were represented at the Murupara meeting collectively held 1 just under 131 shares, or about 13 /2 percent of the total number of shares. When the meeting opened, considerable discussion ensued over the actions of one of those present, Pikake Te Whaiti, who had recently prosecuted an application for partition without having notified any of the other owners.4 One of those present told the meeting that the river flats were occupied by others besides the Te Whaiti family. Following this discussion, Wharepapa Whatanui notified his intention to apply to have the partition cancelled, which met with the agreement of all of the other owners present, except Pikake Te Whaiti. The owners then proceeded to pass the following resolution: That 587 acres of the above Block be sold to Michael Joseph Cotter for the sum of 5/- p acre. The area to be excluded to be 400 acres & to be cut off bounding the Rangitaiki River by a line running due N - S.5 The area which the owners reserved from the"sale was the most fertile ,'and valuable part of the block, and it is clear that some of the ownersowereoccupyingthis land. The minutes of the meeting do not detail how many voted for and against the resolution. On 1 September 1927, the Board confirmed the resolution.6 When confirmation was granted, the total purchase price was raised from £146 ISs to £154.7 ) Application to Summon a Meeting of Owners, 11 February 1926, file 4302, found in WDMLB file 5315, WDMLC, Rotorua 2 Valuation, 8 February 1926, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 3 Schedule of Owners, 26 January 1926, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 4 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 15 December 1926, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 5 Ibid 6 Registrar, WDMLB, to Hampson, Davys, & Ford, 7 January 1928, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 7 Hampson and Davys to Registrar, WDMLB, 6 August 1928, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 125 Map 10 Matahina B2 (portion sold in 1931 and partitions of 1932) ~~ \'0-/> ~~ Jl------~------_,~------~~~ ~ ~ r~ ~ v portion of Matahina B2 sold to or ,, Matahina Bl Matahina B2B Matahina B2A N o 500 1000 1500 2000 I I I I metres 126 On 7 January 1928, the Registrar of the Board wrote to Cotter's lawyers, Hampson, Davys, and Ford, advising them that the confirmation would be rescinded unless payment was made before the next Board meeting.8 This did not occur, and on 28 February Cotter's application was struck out.9 On 6 August 1928, Hampson and Davys wrote to the Registrar of the Board, requesting that the Board reconsider its decision, and confirm the transfer upon payment of interest for the period up until the time of settlement. \0 Hampson and Davys explained that they had not received the 7 Jane letter, and that they had understood that providing interest was paid, the sale would remain open. It was argued that the Board's actions were not in the interests of the owners in that: (1) The land is absolutely of no use to them as vouched by the valuation. (2) The Purchase ofthe block which is for afforestation purposes will give employment to the majority of the owners who live in that locality. 11 Hampson and Davys wrote again to the Registrar on 17.July 1930. 12 In this letter, it was detailed that the President of the Board had been· interviewed twice .about. the sale to Cotter, and that he had been requested to reinstate confirmation in the name of Edgecumbe Forests Limited, a company which had been formed by Cotter and others. The letter detailed that: The President intimated that he would agree to re-instate the confIrmation and to the change of the transferee provided that a consent to that effect be signed by the owners who . 13 were present at th e meetmg. It was then explained that: Since then we have been in constant touch with these owners, and have obtained the consent of four. Paora te Whaiti and Pikake te Whaiti who were the other owners present have been approached on the matter, but have refused to give their consent giving as a reason that the whole of their interests have been severed by partition from the portion sold, although it was explained to them that their partition had been cancelled on the application ofthe other owners. The other owners have been continually enquiring from us as to when we will be paying the money to the Board, but in view of the· attitude adopted by Paora te Whaiti and Pikake te Whaiti who represent the majority of the shares we have been unable to bring the matter to a head. 14 The Registrar was informed that the owners wished to hold a meeting with the Board at Te Whaiti on 21 July to discuss the sale. It was claimed that they hoped to spend the purchase money on their meeting house at Te Whaiti. 15 8 Registrar, WDMLB, to Hampson, Davys, & Ford, 7 January 1928, fIle 4302, found in fIle 5315, Matahina B2 alienation fIle, WDMLC, Rotorua 9 Hampson and Davys to Registrar, WDMLB, 6 August 1928, fIle 4302, found in fIle 5315, Matahina B2 alienation fIle, WDMLC, Rotorua 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Hampson and Davys to Registrar, WDMLB, 17 July 1930, fIle 4302, found in fIle 5315, Matahina B2 alienation fIle, WDMLC, Rotorua \3 Ibid 14 Ibid IS Ibid 127 It is unclear what events followed this letter, or whether the meeting at Te Whaiti was held. The Board confIrmed the sale to Edgecumbe Forests Limited on 18 November 1930. 16 The purchasers were required to pay six percent interest for the period from 1 September 1927 to when the purchase money was paid, which had to be on or before 8 January 17 1931. It was not, however, until 28 May 1931 that settlement was made. \8 Interest amounting to £34 lOs 6d was included in the payment. A Memorandum of Transfer was executed by the President of the Waiariki District Land Board on 1 June 1931. 19 15.2 Partition of Remaining Ngati Hamua Portion of Matahina B2, 1932 The Court heard an application for the petition of the unsold area of Matahina B2 on 13 September 1932.20 The minute book record details that the owners were 'well represented'. Following 'a considerable amount of discussion', partition orders 'were made by arrangement', cutting the unsold area into three portions. The resulting blocks, Matahina B2A, B2B, and B2C, are shown in Map 9 Matahina B2A,with.anareaof75 ,acres 2 roods 13 perches, was awarded to Pikake Te Whaiti, alias Rata Te Whaiti. Matahina B2B was awarded in unequal shares to Paora Te Whaiti, Hepi Paora, Pateriki Paora, and Hurihanganui Paora. The area of the block was 90 acres 2 roods 11 perches. Matahina 2BC contained the balance of the unsold land, and was awarded to the 60 remaining owners in unequal shares. The area of the block was 233 acres 3 roods 16 perches. 15.3 Summary In February 1926, a meeting of the owners of Matahina B2 resolved to sell 587 to Michael Cotter. The resolution was later altered, the name of the purchaser being changed to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, a company formed by Cotter and others. The decision to sell to Cotter, who intended to use the land for afforestation purposes, was made by owners who held just over 13 percent of the total number of shares. In 1932, following the completion of the sale to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, the remaining area of Matahina B2 was partitioned into three subdivisions, Matahina B2A, B2B, and B2C. 16 ConfIrmation of Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 18 November 1930, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 17 Holland, minute, 18 November 1930, on coversheet, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 18 Hampson and Wiseman to Registrar, WDMLB, 28 May 1931, file 4302, found in file 5315, Matahina B2 alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 19 Memorandwn of Transfer 247483, LlNZ, Hamilton 20 Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 82, 13 September 1932, p 279 128 16. Transactions Affecting Matahina B2A, B2B, and B2C 16.1 Lease of Matahina B2A to William Clement Davies, 1936 On 7 August 1936, a Memorandum of Lease for Matahina B2A was executed by William Davies, a Te Teko farmer. On the same day, Davies applied for confIrmation of the 21 year lease. 1 The application detailed that the annual rental was to be fIve shillings an acre, which equates to a total payment of £18 17s lId. A valuation carried out on 12 September 1936 had found the block to have a capital value of £150. 2 The block was deemed to have no improvements. The yearly rental equated to approximately 12_ percent of the block's capital value. The Board confIrmed the lease to Davies on 29 September 1936, and on 30 July 1937 this confIrmation was certifIed upon the Memorandum of Transfer.3 The term of the lease commenced on 1 September 1936.4 In December 1957, an inspector for the Maori Trustee visited the block. In the inspection report it was noted that the leasor was to comply with the Noxious Weeds Act 1908, and was also to repair and maintain buildings. The report stated that the block was reached by a poor road, andthat only 30 acres was 'good flat' land, the balance being 'undulating and steep', and 'Not easily worked. ,5 The Court had ordered Winiata Te Wiremu to be the sole successor of Pikake Te Whaiti on 5 November 1946.6 On 15 May 1958, the District OffIcer of the Department of Maori Affairs wrote to Te Wiremu, informing him that the lease had expired on 30 August 1957.7 He was advised that it would be in his interests to arrange for a further lease, or 'some future occupation.' 16.2 Lease of Matahina B2C to William Clement Davies, 1936 On 2 July 1936, a meeting of the owners of Matahina B2C was held at Te Whaiti to consider applications to lease the land made'by Pita PaoraandWilliam Davies.B Pita Paora was not an owner of the block. He was the son of TeWhaiti Paora, ,to 'whose interest in Matahina B2B he later succeeded. Prior to the meeting, a letter of dissent was signed by at 1 Application for Confmnation, 7 August 1936, fIle 5931, found in fIle 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 2 Valuation, 12 September 1936, file 5931, found in fIle 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 3 Registrar, WDMLB, to Hampson and Davys, 7 June 1937, file 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua; Judge Ayson, minute, undated, on coversheet, file 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 4 Property Inspection Report, 12 December 1957, file 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 5 Ibid 6 Unknown, 10 February 1958, minute on Particulars of Title, 14 August 1936, fIle 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 7 District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, Rotorua, to Te Wiremu, 15 May 1958, file 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua B Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 2 July 1936, fIle 5874, found in file 5874, Matahina B2C leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 129 least three of the block's owners, who desired to have their interests partitioned.9 In their letter, the dissenting owners appointed the chairman of the meeting their proxy, requesting him 'to record our dissent and disapproval and our desire for partition.' The minutes of the meeting of owners detail that five owners attended the meeting. A further three owners were represented by proxy, presumably the dissenting owners mentioned above. Upon the opening ofthe meeting, Pita Paora's representative, Wiira Te Torno, told the meeting that his client was offering a yearly rental of three shillings an acre. William Bird Junior, representing Davies, stated that his client would pay two shillings an acre. Bird told the meeting that he thought the owners ought to establish to whom they wished to lease their land. Responding to this, Wharepapa Whatanui stated that, 'We want to lease so as to get some income from the land. We want a good price and conditions favourable to us. We want three years' rent paid in advance.'lo Following this, Bird questioned whether Pita Paora would be able to meet· the conditions of lease;.· especially the· requirement of paying three years' rent in advance. Te Torno claimed, thathisdient was backed by the Rangitaiki Plains Dairy Company ,and the meeting then adjourned to, allow Paora to contact the Company and establish whether the required advance could be covered. When the meeting resumed, the chairman stated that he had communicated with the secretary of the Rangitaiki Plains Dairy Company, and had been informed that the required rent could not be advanced by the Company without a full meeting of the directorate. Wharepapa Whatanui then told the meeting that: Since Pita Paora's position is difficult and he is not able to satisfy our conditions we would accept the one that is not difficult and could meet our requirements. We do not wish the matter to be adjourned and, therefore, ask that the lease be granted to Mr Bird's client. J1 Reiterating this, Pera Horowai stated that, 'We are all in favour ofMr Bird's man providing he would advance the three years' rent.' The owners then unanimously carried the following resolution: That Matahina B No 2C be leased to William Clement Davies for a term of 21 years with a right of renewal for a further term of21 years',at a rental of 2/- per acre for the first 21 years and 5% of the Government Unimproved Value but not less than 2/- per acre fur the balance of the term; the lessee to pay three years'rentin,advance.12 A yearly rental of two shillings an acre equated to a total annual payment of £23 7s 8d. A valuation of Matahina B2C carried-out on 12 September 1936 found the block to have a capital value of £360.13 The unimproved value of the land was given to £285, while improvements were valued at £75. Annual rental of two shillings an acre equated to approximately 6.5 percent of the capital value, or about 8 percent of the unimproved value. 9 Timi Te Wera and others to Chairman, meeting of assembled owners, 30 June 1936 and 1 July 1936, file 5874, found in file 5874, Matahina B2C leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 10 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 2 July 1936, file 5874, Matahina B2C leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 11 Ibid 12 Ibid 13 Valuation, 12 September 1936, file 5874, Matahina B2C leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 130 On 26 September 1936, the Court heard an application for confIrmation of the resolution carried at Te Whaiti on 2 July.14 K Anaru appeared for Davies, while the dissenting owners were represented by W A Carter. Anaru told the Court that the dissenting owners held 100 shares in the block, which he stated would entitle them to an area of approximately 40 acres. He claimed only part of the block was suitable for occupation, and asserted that it was not in the interests of the dissenting owners to have their interest cut out. Responding to this, Carter told the Court that his clients were 'most desirous to retain their land as a home and farm.' He pointed out that their interests amounted to almost one-fIfth of the block. One of the dissenting owners, Rei Loffley was then sworn before the Court. Loffley told the Court that he and his brothers wished to have their shares cut out because he wanted to farm the land. He stated that his grandparents had cultivated near the river up until 1910. When cross-examined by Carter, he claimed that he had always desired to work the land, and possessed the· money to do so'. The Court decided to stand down the case until independent evidence had been heard concerning the land's suitability for farming. On 29 September, the Court heard evidence from a Mr Meredith, Rotorua District Valuer. IS Meredith told the Court that he had valued the block on 12 September. He stated that there was no one living upon the land at this time. Describing the block, Meredith . detailed that there were 35 acres of river flat, with the balance of the block being 'mostly steep country covered with Tarawera ash'. He told the Court that if an owner acquired the whole of the flat, part of which was in grass, 'it would be a workable proposition', and 'would make a nice farm.' Meredith was cross-examined by Anaru, who asked how many acres of flat land would be included in a 40 acre partition which ran from the river to the back boundary. It would be in this way that the block would be partitioned if Loffley's request was granted. Replying to Anaru's question, Meredith stated that just 15 acres of flat land would be included in such a partition. Speaking for the dissenting owners, Carter told the Court that, 'The eyes of the area have been picked out of these blocks adjoining.' He stated that his clients 'were the earlier occupiers and feel aggrieved and consider they have been badly. treated ,by .the partitions already made.' Carter told the Court that his clients had no objection to Davies leasing the 'balance of the block after their interests had been partitioned. Responding to Carter, Anaru asserted that WharepapaWhatanui had represented the Loffley family when the block had been partitioned. He stated that Loffley had been employed by the Rotorua Borough Council for 10 years, and that his brothers were local residents, which presumably means that they resided in Rotorua, where the Court was sitting. Anaru told the Court that the proposed rent was greater than five percent of the capital value, and asked that confIrmation be granted. Upon consideration, the Court confirmed the resolution to lease to Davies, stating that: On the evidence before it the Court can only infer that the land is not suitable for further partition - at the most the dissentients can have ... 15 acres of flat - it is the Court's 14 Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 84, 26 September 1936, p 213 IS Ibid, 29 September 1936, pp 215-216 131 duty to avoid creating areas unsuitable for separate ownership this is a case in point and a .. . fu 16 partition IS re se.d . In order to provide the dissenting owners with an opportunity to appeal this decision, the Court ordered that documents were not to be executed within two months of confIrmation. A Memorandum of Lease was executed by Davies and the President of the Waiariki Land Board on 30 July 1937. 17 Under the terms of the lease, the lessee was to comply with the Noxious Weeds Act 1928, and was required. to cultivate the land 'in a proper and husbandmanlike manner'. The lessee was also expected to repair and maintain all improvements. The 21 year term of the lease commenced on 1 October 1936. ., I 16.3 Lease of Matahina B2B to William Clement Davies, 1938 A Memorandum of Lease for Matahina B2B was executed by . William Davies on 3 November 1938. On the following day, Davies signed an application for. ·confrrmation of the 21 year lease. 18 The application detailed that the yearly rental was to be seven shillings an acre, which equates to a total annual payment of £31 14s. A valuation carried-out on 14 November 1938 found the capital value of Matahina B2B to be £405. 19 The unimproved value of the block was given to be ·£265, and improvements were valued at £140. The annual rental to be paid by Davies equated to just under eight percent of the capital value of the block. On 16 February 1939, the Court heard Davies' application for confrrmation.20 Confmnation was granted subject to two conditions; fIrst, that all rates, taxes, and assessments were to be paid by the lessee, and secondly, that all rent was to be paid to the Board. The Court considered that 'it was not in the interests of the ... Native lessors' to be paid the rental directly. 21 Davies agreed to these conditions, and on 17 April 1939 the Board's confrrmation was certifIed upon the Memorandum of Transfer.22 The term of the lease commenced on 1 November 1938.23 16.4 Renewal of Lease of Matahina B2C to Hubert Francis Back, 1957 The 21 year term of the lease of Matahina B2C expired'on 1. October 1957. The lease had been transferred three times during the 21 years, and at the end of the· term was held by Hubert Back. In accordance with the conditions of lease, Back wished to renew the lease for a further 21 years. He applied on 12 March 1958 for an order directing the Maori Trustee to execute a renewal of the lease. 24 An inspection of the block was carried-out for 16 Ibid 17 Memorandum of Lease, file 5874, Matahina B2C leases, WDMLC, Rotorua 18 Application for Conftrmation, 4 November 1938, file 6428, found in file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 19 Valuation, 14 November 1938, file 6428, found in file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 20 Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 90, 16 February 1939, p 323 21 Ibid 22 Davies to Registrar, WDMLC, 1 March 1939, file 6428, found in file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua; minute on coversheet, file 6428, found in ftle 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 23 Rotorua Native Land Court minute book 90, 16 February 1939, p 323 24 Application for Order Directing the Maori Trustee to Execute a Renewal of a Certain Memorandum cf Lease, 12 March 1958, file 6428, found in fIle 13925, Matahina B2B alienation fIle, WDMLC, Rotorua 132 I __ ~~~ ______~ ____ . the Maori Trustee on 3 February 1958, and the resulting report noted no breaches of the conditions of lease. 2s On 12 June 1958, the Court issued an order directing the Maori Trustee to execute a renewal of the lease. 26 The terms of the original lease provided that it was to be renewed at an annual rental of two shillings an acre, or five percent of the unimproved value of the block, whichever was the greatest. A valuation carried out on 31 July 1957 found the capital value of Matahina B2C to be £1230. 27 The block's unimproved value was given to be £900, while improvements were valued at £330. Annual rental calculated at five percent of the block's unimproved value equated to £45, or about 3s lOd an acre, and the annual rental of the lease was therefore raised accordingly. A renewal of the Memorandum of Lease was executed by Back and agents for the Maori Trustee on 26 November 1958.28 16.5 Sale of Matahina B2A to Whakatane Board Mills Limited, 1966 On 28 February 1966, a Memorandum of Transfer was signed byWiniata TeWiremu.29 In signing the document, Te Wiremu transferred Matahina B2A to Whakatane Board Mills Limited. The sale was stated to be in consideration of £1,400. On 4 March 1966, an application for confirmation of the sale was made by a solicitor acting on behalf of the company.30 A special government valuation of Matahina B2B carried-out on 15 March 1966 gave the capital value of the block to be £1565. 31 The unimproved value was stated to be £790, and the improved value £775. The application for conftrmation was heard by the Court on 19 April 1966.32 The lawyer representing Whakatane Board Mills requested to increase the purchase price to £1800. Judge Gillanders Scott stated he would be 'inclined' toconfrrm at £1800. He requested that the purchaser make an extended declaration under the Land Settlement Promotion Act 1952. Such a declaration was signed by the Company's secretary on 21 June 1966. It detailed that the land was intended to be used: for afforestation purposes in conjunction with the Company's adjoining MatahinaForest or alternatively to use only the high portion of the said property· for afforestation purposes ... and to exchange the lower portion for other land adjoining the company' s .Matahina Forest.33 On 8 July 1966, the Court confirmed the sale to Whakatane Board Mills Limited for £1800, and the Memorandum of Transfer was accordingly certified.34 2S Property Inspection Report, 3 February 1958, file 6428, found in file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 26 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 32, 12 June 1958, pp 348-349 27 Property Inspection Report, 3 February 1958, file 6428, found in file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 28 Memorandum of Lease S379632, LINZ, Hamilton 29 Memorandum of Transfer S357007, LINZ, Hamilton 30 Application for Confirmation, 4 March 1966, file 5931, found in file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 31 Registrar, WDMLC, to Urquhart, Roe, and Partners, 14 April 1966, file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 32 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 39, 19 April 1966, p 252 33 Declaration by Purchaser, 21 June 1966, file 13382, Matahina B2A alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 34 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 40, 8 July 1966, P 134 133 16.6 Sale of Matahina B2B to Whakatane Board Mills Limited, 1967 On 13 July and 24 July 1967, the two owners of Matahina B2B, Pita Paora and Hepi Paora, respectively signed a Memorandum of Transfer.35 Under the terms of this document, the owners transferred Matahina B2B to Whakatane Board Mills Limited for £2,455, or $4,910, which equated to a value of approximately £27 an acre, or $54 an acre. An application for confIrmation of the sale was made on 29 September 1967.36 A declaration made in support of this application detailed that it was intended that, as with Matahina B2A, Matahina B2B would be used for afforestation puposes.37 The Court confIrmed the alienation on 3 April 1968, and the Memorandum of Transfer was accordingly certifIed.38 16.7 Remaining Ngati Hamua Land Matahina B2C is the only portion of the original Matahina B block which remains in Ngati Hamua ownership. The lease to Back expired on 1 October 1978. In 1968, 18 acres 3 roods was taken from Matahina B2C for the Matahina Power Project.39 This land was required for the lake behind the dam and the riparian strip. 16.8 Summary Between 1936 and 1938, WC Davies leased Matahina B2A, B2B, and B2C. The decision to lease B2C was made by a meeting of owners. In 1957, this lease was renewed by HF Back In 1966 and 1967, Matahina B2A and B2B were purchased by Whakatane Board Mills Limited for afforestation purposes. At this time, Matahina B2A had one owner, and Matahina B2B had two owners. Matahinl;l B2C remains in Ngati Hamua ownership. 35 Memorandum of Transfer 407445, LINZ, Hamilton 36 Application for Confmnation, 29 September 1967, file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 37 Declaration in Support of Application for Confmnation, 4 September 1967, file 13925, Matahina B2B alienation file, WDMLC, Rotorua 38 Whakatane 44,3 Apri11968, p 113 39 Proclamation of land taken for the development of water power (Rangitaiki River Power Scheme) in blocks 14 and 15, Rangitaiki Upper survey district, and blocks 2, 3, and 7, Rangitaiki Lower survey district, Whakatane County, 9 August 1968, New Zealand Gazette, 1968, no 53, pp 1399-1400 134 ------,--::-"-1- 17. Matahina C South and Matahina CIB 17.1 Inclusion of Matahina C South and Matahina C1B into the Ruatoki Development Scheme, 1932 Apirana Ngata's plans for the development of Maori land were given a statutory basis with the passage of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929. Ngata had become Native Minister in 1928. Under the provisions of the 1929 Act, the Native Minister was given authority to overcome title difficulties, and bring land under the scope of a development scheme. Alan Ward explains that: the difficulties of title were put aside in favour of the development of the land. Alienation was prevented but control moved substantially from the 'owners to· the Minister· and the Boards. The 1929 Act gave the Native Minister powersrelating toimproving,equipping and fmancing the land for settlement by •Maori. The State provided· the funds for development, all of which were interest bearing and secured by was·of mortgage 'over the land concerned.! Ward details that by March 1931, there were 41 schemes in operation. These schemes contained an area of 591,524 acres, of which 228,000 were thought to be of a quality suitable for cultivation. A meeting of the owners of the Waiohau block was held on 19 April 1933 to consider the establishment of a development scheme.2 The Patuheuheu owners of the block also owned Matahina C and Cl. Following the meeting, lki Pouwhare and 78 other Patuheuheu and one Ngati Wharesigned a letter stating that, 'We the undersigned hereby submit our lands to be worked under the land development scheme of the Honourable Native Minister.'3 The letter placed the following lands under the authority of the Native Minister for the purpose of development: (1) Waiohau blocks 7,000 acres (2) Totokorau block 400 acres (3) Te Teko block 310 acres (4) Te Raepohatu block 666 acres The [mal block given here, 'Te Raepohatu block', is Matahina C South and CIB. Te Raepohatu is the name of the settlement that was located within Matahina C South. The total area of Matahina C South and C 1B was 666 acres. On 11 May 1933, the Native Land Settlement Board carried a motion recommending that several blocks of land, including Matahina C South and CIB, 'be ... included in the Ruatoki Development Scheme and that the development of the developable areas be ! Alan Ward, National Overview: Volume II, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1997, p 392; Ward quotes from Hutton, p 415 2 Peene to Ngata, 20 April 1933, AAMK 869 898C 63/56 part 1 Ruatoki Development Scheme, NA Wellington 3 Pouwhare to Tama-ki-Hikurangi, 19 April 1933, AAMK 869 898C 63/56 part 1 Ruatoki Development Scheme, NA Wellington 135 undertaken by the Native Department.'4 Matahina C South and C1B were formally included into the Ruatoki Development Scheme on 22 May 1933.5 Notification of this in the New Zealand Gazette detailed that: No owner, except with the consent of the Native Minister, is entitled to exercise any rights of ownership in connection with the land affected so as to interfere with or obstruct the carrying-out of the development scheme.6 17.2 Subsequent History of Matahina C South and Matahina CIB On 26 July 1951, a meeting of the owners of Matahina C South and CIB was held at Muraparato consider an offer by the Crown to purchase the blocks for £1 an acre. 7 It is unclear how many owners were present or otherwise represented at the meeting. Before the Crown's representative arrived at the meeting,IkiPouwhare toldthe meeting that: Two years ago the Crown came to us with a Proposal for exchange, so that they could acquire a site for the Pulp Mill at Murupara. We had a big talk then, and we thought the matter was practically settled. Nothing has been done since, yet they have come to us with another Proposal- why don't they fIx that up fIrst? In any case we don'twant to sell this land. I speak on behalf of my family - we object to the sale. 8 Several other owners also spoke against the sale. Henry Bird stated that: I also object. As stated by Iki Pouwhare, the Crown has not yet settled the Mill site business .... Now, the Crown offers us £1 per acre for our land. I wonder would they sell us their interest in these blocks for the same price? I suggest that the Crown's proposal be rejected, and that the Crown be approached to sell us their 667 acres in each block for £1 an acre. 9 This motion was moved and seconded. Upon the arrival of the Crown's representative, a Mr Lockie from the Department of Lands and Survey, questions were asked. as to how the Crown hoped to use the land. Lockie told the meeting'.that he was unsure 'of this, and asked the owners how they would use the Crown'satea if they acquired ·it. Henry. Bird responded to this, stating that: Our portion is already gazetted under the scheme, and we have several times asked that it be developed. A further 1200 acres would make it a worthwhile project, and would absorb some of the many young Maori fanners in this district who are landless. Furthermore, we have many lads at Secondary School who are studying agriculture. \0 Continuing on from Bird, Waimarama Te Hata told the meeting that: 4 Extract of minutes of Native Land Settlement Board, 11 May 1933, AAMK 869 898C 63/56 part 1 Ruatoki Development Scheme, NA Wellington 5 Including Additional Land in Ruatoki Development Scheme, 22 May 1933, New Zealand Gazette, 1933, no 42, p 1539 6 Ibid 7 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 26 July 1951, rue 8636, Matahina C South alienation fIle, WDMLC, Rotorua 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 136 I recently refused to sell my Runanga bush, on the grounds that we wanted timber and fencing materials to develop our lands. This is one of the areas I had in mind, and we hope to have the block fully developed in the near future. I I Bird's motion was then voted upon, and unanimously carried. No response was made to the owners' offer to purchase Matahina C North and CIA from the Crown. Despite the inclusion of Matahina C South and CIA in the Ruatoki Development Scheme, it appears from the comments made by Henry Bird that these lands remained undeveloped. Contrary to the opinion expressed by some of the owners, it seems that Matahina C South and CIA were unsuitable for pastoral development. A valuation of the blocks was carried out on 15 August 1949 by district valuer BM Shuneworth: I do not consider that this Block can be,economically developed for farming. The unconsolidated nature of the ash is against establishment of pasture on this hilly.contour. The valley land, though it would consolidate is dispersed and of a coatserash than the hills. Lack of water inside the block is also a drawback. ... A valuation for purely farming use would show a minimal sum only.12 MatahinaC South and CIA were released from the development scheme on 20 May 1959.\3 In November 1972, Matahina C South and CIA were amalgamated to form Matahina E, which was vested in the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board.14 Part of Matahina E was exchanged with adjacent land when an area of the block, some 21 hectares, was acquired by the Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board in February 1982. The new block, named Matahina F, was vested in the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board.ls On 28 July 1989, Matahina F was leased for 85 years t6 Matahina F Forest Limited.16 17.3 Summary In 1932, Matahina C South and CIB were included in the RuatokiDevelopment Scheme at the request ofthe blocks' Patuheuheu owners. Itappears:that.Matahina C South and CIB were never developed while part of the scheme, from which they were released in 1959. In 1951, a meeting of the owners rejected an offer by the Crown to purchase the blocks. The owners expressed an interest in developing Matahina C South and CIB themselves. In 1972, the blocks were later amalgamated and vested in the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. 11 Ibid 12 Valuation, 15 August 1949, cited in Nikora, p 49 13 Releasing Land from the Provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, 20 May 1959, New Zealand Gazette, 1959, no 31, p 701 14 Nikora, p 50 IS Ibid, P 52 16 Ibid, P 53 137 18. Present Ownership of the Matahina Block Map 11 Present Ownership of the Matahina Block Tasman Forestry Limited Tarawera Forests Limited Forestry Corporation of New Zealand (State Owned Enterprise) N o 2 4 6 8 10 1~ ____~ ____~ ____L- __~~ __~ kilometres 138 ------1 ,' ______ Conclusion Owing to the nature of the available sources, it is impossible to establish a clear picture of the traditional history and occupation of the Matahina block. Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the Native Land Court's 1884 judgement accurately established the legitimate owners of the block, and the portions which each held. As identified by Judge Brookfield in his 1881 judgement, much of the evidence presented to the Court was contradictory. Also, it is unclear whether Tuhoe were appropriately represented in Court owing to the policies of Te Whitu Tekau, and the difficulties that were posed by attendance at distant Court sittings. By 1970, less than 1200 acres of land within the boundaries of the original Matahina block remained in Maori ownership. This equates to about 1_ percent of the block's original area. Apart from small areas of the block which were taken for public .works purposes, including the two burial· grounds, Matahina· A 4 and A5, the alienated .land was either sold by its Maori owners, or taken in connection with survey costs. About 80 percent of the alienated land was sold. With the exception of the proportion of Matahina A6 which was taken for advances made by Mitchell and Davis, and the 19,000 acres which was· partitioned from Matahina Al for advances made by an Australian syndicate, all of the sold land was alienated following the passage of the Native Land Act 1909. This Act brought the process of alienation under the scrutiny of the Maori Land Boards, which operated until 1947, when their work was taken-over and spread between the Maori Land Court and the Maori Trustee. The 1909 Act also removed. existing alienation restrictions. In the Matahina block, this meant that Matahina A2 and A3, with a combined area of 12,000 acres, were able to be alienated. While· the process by which Land Boards administered the alienation of Maori land appears to have contained important safeguards, it has been identified that in practice 'the safeguards often did not apply or were poorly applied. ,1 The difficulty faced by the Land Boards in carrying out their administrative· duties, and therefore "meeting 'their statutory obligations, has been described by several authors, whose views are.summarised by Alan Ward: Dr [Donald] Loveridge doubts that the checks required before the confinnation by land [boards] . . . . could have been adequate in view of the sheer number of transactions passing through them ... [John] Hutton, who studied the Waikato-Maniapoto board in some depth, considers that the 1909 Act created a huge work load. of work for the boards which were given few additional resources . . . With a steady schedule of meetings, and upwards of thirty applications at each meeting, 'it is difficult to see how the board could have properly gauged whether or not the sale was "contrary to equity or good faith or to the interest of Natives alienating,,,.2 In granting confirmation of the alienations· of the Matahina subdivisions, the Waiariki District Maori Land Board did successfully meet many of its statutory obligations. In each 1 Bennion, Maori Land Court and Land Boards, p 28 2 Ward, National Overview, p 392 139 case, the instrument of alienation was seen to be correctly executed. Also, the Board ensured that the purchase price was not below government valuation, and that the purchase money was received by the owners. In the case of the alienations of Matahina A2 and 5000 acres of Matahina AID, it is unclear whether the owners were paid interest. As a consequence of delays in payment, these transactions were not completed until almost a decade after the owners had resolved to sell the land. subdivision partitions / sales / leases / maior takings MatahinaAl 1891 partition of AI: (53,795 acres) AlB (19,000 acres) awarded to Hemy Mitchell and Edwin Hesketh AIC (6000 acres) awarded to Henry Mitchell for survey costs AID (28795 acres) ) 1923: part AID (5000 acres) sold to William Elwarth 1927: part AID (22,000 acres approx) sold to . Kotahi Lands Ltd 1936: partAID(260 acres approx) leased to WC Davies . 1957: renewal oflease of part AID (260 acres approx) to HF Back 1961: part of AID (1230 acres approx) timber cutting rights sold to Kauri Timber Company 1966 partition: AIDI (260 acres approx) AID2 (1230 acres approx) 1966: AID2 amalgamated with other blocks to form Tarawera 1 MatahinaA2 1923: sold to Arthur Galbraith (2000 acres) MatahinaA3 1914 partition of A3: (10,000 acres) A3A (421 acres approx) ~ 1949: A3A timber cutting rights sold to Uepango Sawmilling Company 1969: A3A sold to Whakatane Board Mills Ltd A3B (9578 acres approx) ~ 1925: A3B sold to George Syme Jor and George Syme and Co Ltd MatahinaA4 1968: A4 taken for Matahina Power Project (1 acre) MatahinaA5 1968: A5 taken for Matahina Power Project (3 acres) MatahinaA6 1884: A6 taken by Crown for survey costs (8500 acres) MatahinaB 1907: Crown awarded land (513 acres) in lieu of survey costs (1500 acres) 1931: part B2 (587 acres) sold to Edgecumbe Forests Limited 1932 partition of remaining area ofB2: B2A (76 acres approx) ~ 1936: B2A leased to WC Davies 1966: B2A sold to Whakatane Board Mills Ltd B2B (91 acres approx) ~ 1938: B2B leased to WC Davies 1967: B2B sold to Whakatane Board Mills Ltd B2C (234 acres approx) ~ 1936: B2C leased to WC Davies 1957: renewal oflease ofB2C to HF Back 1968: part B2C (19 acres approx) taken for Matahina Power Project Matahina C and C 1 1907: Crown awarded land (667 acres from both blocks) in lieu of survey costs (1000 acres and 1972: C South and CIA amalgamated to form Matahina E 1000 acres) 1982: part E exchanged with neighbouring land to form Matahina F MatahinaD 1907: Crown awarded land (920 acres) in lieu of survey costs (1000 acres) 1966: D2 amalgamated with other blocks to form Tarawera 1 Table 7: Summary of Petitions, Sales, Leases, and Major Takings of Matahina Subdivisions 140 Although the Waiariki Land Board satisfied some of its statutory obligations, it did not ensure that the Matahina alienations were not 'contrary to equity or good faith or to the interests of the Natives alienating'.J In relation to the matter of landlessness, the Board's administration appears to have clearly been unsatisfactory. The greatest failure of the Board with regard to this matter occurred when almost 22,000 acres ofMatahina AID was sold to Kotahi Lands Limited in 1927. As detailed in Section 11, 45 percent of the owners of this block held interests in no other lands. Following the sale to Kotahi Lands, these owners were left with interests only in the 1475 acres of Matahina AID which remained unsold. Similarly, when Matahina A3B was sold in 1925, it appears that the only other lands possessed by many of the owners were interests in Matahina AID, which were often very small. It seems that the Waiariki Land Board was' content to assume that the interests of the alienating owners could not provide them with sufficient support, a circumstance which under section 91 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913 made allowable the sale of land belonging to Maori with little or no land. To a large extent, it is correct that very little income could, have been generated from the interests of the owners of the Matahina subdivisions. Combined with a lack of financial assistance for the development of Maori land, this was a consequence of a system which ensured that land owned by Maori was inevitably held· in uneconomic . shares. It is unclear how the owners of the Matahina subdivisions spent the money that was paid to them when their lands were leased or sold. There is no evidence to suggest that they attempted to incorporate themselves and use the money to develop any land that remained in their possession. The regulations under which meetings of owners were held enabled the decision to sell land to be made by a minority of owners who held a small proportion of the total shares in a block. Table 8 shows that this situation prevailed when resolutions to sell were carried at meetings of the owners of the Matahina subdivisions. It is unlikely that the Board's notification procedures would have successfully ensured that all owners were informed of the meetings, a factor which must at least partly, explain why the meetings were attended by a minority of owners. alienation percentage of owners percentage of total present or represented shares held by those at meeting in favour of resolution part AiD (5000 acres) to William Elwarth, 1923 14.4 16.1 part AiD (22,000 acres) to Kotahi Lands Limited, 1927 alienation file missing alienation file. missing A2 to Arthur Galbraith, 1923 28.9 20.5 A3A to Whakatane Board Mills Limited, 1969 details not in file 30.0 A3B to George Syme Jor and George Syme & Co Limited, 49.3 33.8 1925 Part B2 (587 acres) to Edgecumbe Forests Limited, 1932 9.5 13.3 Table 8: Proportion of Owners Present or Represented at Meetings where Owners Resolved to Sell Land, and Proportion of Shares Held by Owners in Favour of Resolution 3 Section 220(b), Native Land Act 1909 141 ------ In at least two instances, it appears that the Waiariki Land Board unreasonably dismissed requests made by owners during the process of alienation. The Board did not appear to have given serious consideration to a request made in March 1917, asking that the resolutions to sell Matahina A2, A3B, and part AID be cancelled owing to delays in the payment of the purchase money. The request was made by lawyers who claimed to act on behalf of a considerable number of the blocks' owners. The Board dismissed the request without establishing the number of owners whose interests were represented by the lawyers, and in September 1918 the timetable for the payment of the purchase money was extended by the President of the Board without consulting the owners. The Board's dismissal of the request made by those owners of Matahina A3B who dissented to the sale of the block to George Syme Jm and George Syme and Co Limited also appears to have been unreasonable. The 'Board did not allow a great deal of time to consider the wishes of the dissenting owners. The resolution to.- sell the block was confirmed on 28 July 1925, 17 days after the meeting of owners, Approximately 20 percent of the alienated land, or about 15,000 acres, was taken in connection to survey costs. This land was alienated at three separate times: 1884, 1891, and 1907. Following the rehearing of the title investigation in 1884, the Crown was awarded Matahina A6, with an area of 8500 acres. This land was awarded to the Crown in satisfaction of the costs of the first survey of the block, and the -money that had been advanced to Ngati Awa chiefs by Mitchell and Davis. The taking of this land was unfair for two reasons. First, it was unreasonable that the Land Purchase Department and the Native Minister refused a request made in 1882 by Ngati Awa asking that they be allowed to refund both the cost of the survey, and the money that had been. advanced ,by Mitchell and Davis. Secondly, there is clear evidence thatthe expense of the survey was exaggerated to increase the area of land that the government acquired from Ngati Awa. This strategy appears to have been employed by officials in the Land Purchase Department because of Mitchell and Davis' failure to purchase a sizeable area of the block. It also served to recover in land the money which Mitchell and Davis had advanced to individuals who were later discovered to have no interest in the block. In 1891, 6000 acres was partitioned from Matahina Al and awarded to Mitchell in order to clear other Ngati Awa subdivisions of charges connected to the survey that Mitchell had organised in 1885. The Court heard from Penetito Hawea that all Ngati Awa agreed to the partition of this area to free the land of debt. The Native Land Court's process of operation had required Ngati Awa to have two surveys carried out. The first survey had been required in order to bring the block before the Court for title investigation, and the second survey was required to define the boundaries of the land awarded to Ngati Awa following the rehearing. The decision made by Ngati Awa to break the land awarded to them in 1885 into several subdivisions increased the expense of the second survey. The 142 Tribunal has commented upon the burden of survey costs upon Maori land owners in the Pouakani report: We accept the need for survey to identify boundaries for title purposes. We question why Maori were required to pay so substantially for the whole cost of the survey .... There is nothing in the Treaty of Waitangi which required the transmuting of traditional Maori forms of land tenure into titles cognisable in British law. By imposing requirements for survey and associated costs ... many Maori were forced into debt. That there had to be a fair system of establishing ownership when a sale was contemplated is accepted. The legislation under which the Native Land Court operated went much further than that and required that all Maori land be passed through the court with all the attendant costs of that process. When the debts were called in Maori paid in land.4 In 1907, the Crown was awarded areas of Matahina B (513 acres), C ( 667 acres), C 1 (667 acres, and D (920 acres) in lieu of costs arising from the 1885 ,survey of the Matahina subdivisions. The blocks had been charged with survey costs in 1891 upon application by Mitchell. The Crown took over the charges after Mitchell was dec1aredbankrupt in 1894. The file concerning this survey appears to have been either lost or destroyed, and it is not clear that the owners of Matahina B, C, Cl, and D had requested the 1885 survey. It is also uncertain whether the owners of these blocks were given adequate notice of the Crown's intention to take land. Another issue concerns the valuations which were used to determine the areas taken from each block. It seems clear that the valuations given for Matahina B and D in 1907 were unreasonably low. This is apparent from valuations of these blocks which were carried out in 1910, when the Crown was preparing to purchase the residue of the blocks. It is difficult to assess the fairness of the valuation used to calculate the land taken from Matahina C and C 1. This is because the only available comparison is the valuations of surrounding blocks. The extent to which any of these valuations accurately reflect the value of Matahina C and Cl is unclear. 4 Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report 1993, Wellington, Brooker's Limited, pp 307-308 143 Bibliography Primary Sources - National Archives, Auckland BAJJ A 73 1914-152 box 48, Matahina A3 alienation file BAJJ A73 1914-154 box 48, Matahina A2 alienation file BAJJ A 73 1914-155 box 49, Matahina AID (part) alienation file BBLA 4945 1222a 13-93-1, Matahina AID (part) lease file (Maori Trustee) BBLA 4945 1409b 13-1791, Matahina A3A alienation file (Maori Trustee) Primary Sources - National Archives, Wellington Auckland District Appellate Court minute book President's Appellate,Court minute book Rotorua Native Land Court minute book Whakatane Native Land Court minute book AAMK 869 898C 63/56 part 1, Ruatoki Development Scheme MA 1 1919/460, Petition No 5111918 MA 1 1920/277 Petition No 59/1920 MA 1 1924/345, Petition No 339/1924 MA 1 5/13/211, Petition No 59/1947 MA-MLP 1 1888/50 MA-MLP 11910/59 Primary Sources - Maori Land Court, Rotorua Block Order Files 247B: Matahina AID, title and miscellaneous 249B:'.Matahina A2, title and miscellaneous . 250B:Matahina A3A and A3B,titlesand miscellaneous 25T:Matahina A4-A6; titles and miscellaneous 252B: Matahina B, title and miscellaneous 253B: Matahina C, title and miscellaneous 254: Matahina D, successions, title and miscellaneous Alienation Files 5310B: Matahina AID, schedule of other lands owned 5315: Matahina B2 5874: Matahina B2C leases 8636, Matahina C South 8850: Matahina A3B 11035: Matahina AID leases 13382: Matahina B2A 13916: Matahina A3A 13925: Matahina B2B 144 - -- -'---- ~=:-=-=------~~. -----~-~------'--j-----'~ Primary Sources - Land Information New Zealand, Hamilton CTs: PR 10/46, PR 25/65, PR 260/97, PR 266/84, 6A1933, 7C/355, 602/6, 60217, 622/282 ML: 4705 Memoranda of Transfer: 189999, 192977,131253,247483,407445, S457052, S357007 Memoranda of Lease: 13809, 16179, S379632, S379633 Lands and Survey Jiles 2011172, Matahina Block Surveys Official Sources Appendices to the Journals ofthe House ofRepresentatives New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Statutes Secondary Sources - unpublished Alexander, David, 'Matahina Power Project Including Te Mahoe Village & Rangitaiki 60c Core Material Quarry', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5) Battersby, John, 'Matahina C and C1: Issues Related to the Survey of the Blocks', undated, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H9) Bennion, Tom, The Maori Land Court and Land Boards, 1909 to 1952, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (working paper: first release), July 1997 Bennion, Tom, and Miles, Anita, 'Ngati Awa and Other Claims', September 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc L1) Doherty, Wiremu, 'Traditional History Relating to Matahina C & C1', 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc D5) Ertel, Kathy L, 'Opening Submission of counsel for Te Runanganui 0 Te Ika Whenua Incorporated Society', February 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, document D9) Gardiner, Jeremy, 'The Matahina Block and the Kaingaroa Forest', November 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc L11) Harvey, L, 'Tarawera Forest Project', August 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc B25) Marr, Cathy, Public Works Takings of Maori Land: 1840-1981, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (working paper: first release), May 1997 Martin, H, 'Report on Matahina F', August 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc C3) , 145