NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1922. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 187/1922, RELATIVE TO SUCCESSORS APPOINTED TO INTERESTS OF RAPATA NEPIA AND MEREANA TE MAROHUIA IN HAUPOTO BLOCK AND LOTS 28b AND 31, PARISH OF RANGITAIKI.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1923 Session I-II, G-06f

a—gf

Session 11. 1923. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1922. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 187/1922, RELATIVE TO SUCCESSORS APPOINTED TO INTERESTS OF RAPATA NEPIA AND MEREANA TE MAROHUIA IN HAUPOTO BLOCK AND LOTS 28b AND 31, PARISH OF RANGITAIKI.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 55 of the Native Laml Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1922.

Native Department, Wellington, Bth June, 1.923. Re Petition 157/1922 — Keita Rangitukia. Pursuant to section 55 of tho Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1922, the report of the Native Land Court on the above-mentioned petition is enclosed. The Court is of opinion that the orders in respect of Mereana te Marohuia should not be disturbed, but that the Court should be empowered to cancel the existing succession orders in respect of the interests of Rapata Nepia (deceased). This is not quite practicable with regard to some of the orders, as there have been dealings by the successors, and it would be manifestly wrong to destroy the source of a purchaser's title. I recommend that the order made on 2nd October, 1907, in respect of the interest of Rapata Nepia (deceased) in the Houpoto No. 3 Block be cancelled ; and that the Court shall, have jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances attending the making of orders dated the 19th September, 1907, in respect of the interests of Rapata Nepia (deceased) in the Rangitaiki Lot 28b and Rangitaiki Lot 31, and, if it is of opinion that any person included in those succession orders was not entitled to be so included, it may order that so much of the share or interest of any such person wrongly included as has not been the subject of a contract for sale shall vest in such person as the Court thinks is properly entitled thereto. Such interest shall thereupon vest in the person so named by the Court, subject to any lease lawfully made prior to such vesting-order. The Hon. Native Minister, Wellington. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge.

Office of the A.otea District Native Land Court, Wanganui, 4th May, 1923. Memorandum for the Chief Judge, Native Land Court, Wellington. Petition, No. 157/1922, of Keita Rangitukia. I beg to report that, in pursuance of your reference under section 55 of the* Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1922, I held an inquiry into the subject-matter of this petition, at Whakatane, on the 24th ultimo. The petition is in regard to succession orders made by the Court in respect of the interests of Rapata Nepia (deceased) in Houpoto Block and in Lots 28b and 31, Parish of Rangitaiki, and of Mereana te Marohuia (deceased) in the two last-named sections. A copy of the minutes taken at the inquiry is attached. The recommendation of the Court is as follows :— 1. Re Rapata Nepia (deceased). —In this case it would appear that the person properly entitled to succeed is the petitioner. The Court should be empowered to cancel the existing succession orders, and to make new orders accordingly, where necessary. It should be noted, though, that the

i—a. 6f.

G.~ 6f

2

Rangitaiki sections have been extensively subdivided, and in some cases there have been alienations (for these see Schedules A and B attached). The Houpoto interest, which comprises T V 0I 4,277 acres, does not appear to have been alienated. 2. Re Mereana. te Marohuia (deceased).- —In this case it is recommended that the previous award be not interfered with. The successors appointed were the petitioner and Anahera Patara, equally. It has been shown that the latter was almost as closely related to the deceased as is the petitioner, and she was also an adopted child of Mereana. Schedules C and. D attached indicate location of successors' interests on partition, and also show what alienations have taken place. The reference to the Court requires it to make some recommendation as to the amount of compensation, if any, to which the petitioner is entitled. Her solicitor made it plain that a monetary payment is sought, and that the claim is made as against the Crown. It has not been made clear that, in making the award which it did, Judge Mair's Court has placed the Crown in a position rendering such a claim tenable. It was a Court of competent jurisdiction, and it may have been in possession of facts not brought out at the recent inquiry. There is no doubt but that, in respect of Rapata Nepia's interest, the petitioner has been prejudiced by the fact that some of the interests have been alienated. But she is herself not blameless in the matter, as she allowed fifteen years to elapse before she petitioned Parliament. Most of the alienations are of comparatively recent date. The Crown Law Office would be best qualified to advise as to whether the Crown should be held responsible for errors of judgment made by a competent judicial tribunal in the exercise of its powers, and as to this this Court has no recommendation to make. Head Office file N. 1922/403 is returned herewith. W. H. Bowler, Commissioner.

G.—6f.

Schedule A.—Succession to Rapata Nepia— Rangitaiki Lot 28b.

Schedule B.—Succession to Rapata Nepia— Rangitaiki Lot 31.

2—G. 6k

3

Successors. Area of Succession Interest." 28b 1. 2a 2e. 2E 2. 3c 1. 4 a. 5d. 6A. 6B. 7. Remarks. Heni Pitu Hera Murutakaka Kararaina Meke Mereaira te Keepa Keita Rangitukia Parekowhai Hoani Te Hurinui Apanui Rewiri Patara Tautuhi Orongo Werahiko .. A. R. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. 1 33512 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 .. 1 1 32 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 1 32 1 3 35 2 0 3 1 3 35 2 0 3 i A. R. P. A. R. P. A. E. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. 1 1 32 '.'. 1 1 32 1 1 32 1 1 32 I A. B. P. 1 1 32 28 b 7 sold; £12 6s. 6d. paid for interest. 6b leased, £1 Is. 9d. per annum rental, 15s. per acre rent. 1 1 32 28b 7 sold; £12 6s. 6d. paid for interest. No alienations. ?\ote. —Xo alienations of Lot 28b 1—Sand portion.

Successors. Area of Succession Interest. A 2. B. c. D. £. F. J. P 1. P3. Remarks. Keita Rangitukia Hurinui Apanui Hira Marutakaka Tautuhi Orongo Werahiko .. Reweri Patura Mereaira te Keepa Kararaina Meke Parekowhai Hoani Heni Piti A. R. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. 6 1 20 I 6 1 20 ! 6 1 20 .. 0 1 32 6 1 20 6 1 20 ! 0 1 32 6 1 20 6 1 20 6 1 20 .. .. 0 2 16 6 1 20 A. K. P. A. R. P. A. E. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. A: R. P. 0 1 32 .. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31f sold; £11 14s. for interest. 31p 1 sold; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. paid. 0 1 32 2 3 10 3 0 18 31 J sold; £10 16s. for interest. 31p 1 sold ; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. paid. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31e leased, 15 years, 1/7/14; £5 Is. 3d. rent paid. 31p 1 sold; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 : £1 3s. 4d. paid. 0 1 32 .. .. 2 3 10 j 3 0 18 31e, no alienations. 31p 1 sold; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 3lP 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. paid. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31a 2 not sold. 31p 1 sold ; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. paid. 0 1 32 .. .. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31e, no alienations. 31p 1 sold; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. paid. 0 1 32 .. .. .. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31d sold; £9 for interest. 31p 1 sold ; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17, £1 3s. 4d. paid. 2 3 12 2 3 32 31c leased, twentv-one vears, 5/9/14; £2 3s. 9d. rent paid. 31p 1 sold ; £5-13s. for interest. 31p 3 leased ; £1 2s. 3d. rent paid. 0 1 32 .. 2 3 10 3 0 18 31f sold; £11 for interest. 31p 1 sold; £5 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, 5/5/17 ; £1 3s. 4d. rent paid.

G:— 6f

Schedule D.—Succession to Mereana te Marohuia— Rangitaiki Lot 31.

Schedule C.—Succession to Mereana te Marohuia— Rangitaiki Lot 28b.

4

Successors. Area of Succession: Interest. 31A 2. 31F. 3lP 1. 31P 3. Remarks. Anahera Patara Keita Rangitukia .. A. R. P. 28 2 28 28 2 28 A. R. P. 10 0 A. r. p. 2 0 4 A. R. P. 13 0 0 12 3 10 A. R. P. 14 2 28 31a 2 sold; £20 for interest. 31p 1 sold ; £26 for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, twenty-one years, 5/5/17 ; £5 10s. rent paid to date. 31p sold; £52 for interest. 31p 1 sold ; £25 12s. 6d. for interest. 31p 3 leased, Is. 3d. per acre, twenty-one years, 5/5/17 ; £5 rent paid to date. 13 1 14

Area of Succession Interest. 2SB 3B 2. 28b 7. Remark?. Sieceessors. 28b 1. Anahera Patara Keita Rangitukia A. R. P. 8 3 30 8 3 30 A. R. P. 2 1 38 2 1 38 A. R. P. 6 1 32 A. R. P. 6 i 32 No alienations of divisions. 28b 1, no alienations. 28b 7 sold; £54 16s. 6d. paid to successor for interest.

5

G.—6f

[Extract from Whakalane Minute-book No. 21, pages 67-74.] 21th April, .1923. Re Mereana te Marohuia and Rapata Nepia (deceased). —Inquiry pursuant to section 55 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1922. Mr. Smith for the petitioner, Keita Rangitukia ; Mr. T. M. Lawson for the respondents. Mr. Smith : The interests affected are those of Rapata Nepia in Rangitaiki Lot 28b (succession order dated 19th September, 1907), Rangitaiki Lot 31 (succession order dated 19th September, 1907), Houpoto (succession order dated 2nd October, 1907) ; and those of Mereana te Marohuia in Rangitaiki Lot 28b (succession order dated 19th September, 1907), Rangitaiki Lot 31 (succession order dated 19th September, 1907). Keita Rangitukia, the petitioner, is a woman of about ninety—very infirm and very deaf. I have not considered it necessary to have her in attendance, and I propose to attempt to establish the case by outside evidence. The petition refers to two separate deceased persons. In Pokohu 0 and D, Waimana 260 a Nos. 28 and 9, Waimana 266, Omataroa No. 10, Lot 39, Whakatane, and in Matahina A No. 3b, Keita Rangitukia was appointed successor to Rapata Nepia. It is sought to have cancelled, the succession orders referred to in the petition. After this lapse of time some of the lands may have been sold. In addition to the claim for land there is a claim for compensation. Even if the lands have not been leased my client has been deprived of the opportunity of dealing with them. The people who have been appointed successors can hardly be blamed. The awards were made by a Judge of the Native Land Court, and I think that this Court, in considering its recommendation, should take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been put to expense. I suggest that, if the finding is in favour of the petitioner, the Government should pay her a reasonable amount of compensation to reimburse her for the loss of the land during the period since the succession orders were made, and for the expenses to which she has been put. The latter will be approximately £45. Pouawua Meihana (sworn) : I knew Mereana te Marohuia. 1 will give her whakapapa as far as I know it: — Mokaikai = Rangitakamoe = Takatoihu, alias Te Waka (first husband) j (or Katamoe) (seoond husband) Mereana te Marohuia (n<i issue). Rangitukia Nepia — Paea (of Ngatirangi) . I , l„ Keita Rangitukia. Rapata Nepia I (Issuo dead.) I went to Wellington in support of the petition and. produced certain succession order's, in regard to other blocks, whereby the interests of Mereana te Marohuia were awarded to Rapata Nepia. Tho former died about 1901 and the latter about 1906. Anahera Patara was one of the successors appointed to Mereana te Marolmia in Rangitaiki Lots 28b and 31. Ido not know that she was at all related to the deceased. I knew Heni Piti. She used to live here at one time. I never heard that she was at all related to either of the deceased persons named in the petition. Merito Hataraka and T. M. Lawson were in Wellington when the petition came before the Native Affairs Committee. We were all there when the Hon. Mr. Ngata asked Merito what he thought of tho petition. He replied, "It is quite right " (Kei to tika). He also admitted this before the Committee. Cross-examined by Merito Hataraka:] Ido not know who Keita Rangitukia's father was. Prom her appearance he may have been a European. Rangitakamoe (or Katamoe) belonged to N'Awa. I cannot say what interests in land she had, or what her hapus were;. Mokaikai belonged to N'Awa and to several hapus, but I cannot name them. N'Hokopu was one. I know that Keita was living with the Arawa people when Rapata Nepia died. Rapata died at Rangitaiki. He had a serious illness, and his relatives here looked after him, but not at the time of his death. After his illness he was totally blind for a long time. Some of his successors looked after him, but not all of them. I never heard that Takotoiliu had any interest in the Rangitaiki lands. Tiaki Rewiri (sworn) : I remember Rapata Nepia's death. He had one child, Koau Rapata, who I think was alive when he died. Koau died without issue, but I cannot say when. (Witness gave whakapapa identical with that given by last witness.) Keita Rangitukia was more closely related to Rapata Nepia than any of the other persons appointed to succeed to his interests. Rapata and Keita were the nearest of kin to Mereana to Marohuia, and should have been appointed to succeed to her interests. Anahera Patara was an adopted child of Mereana te Marohuia. Cross-examined by Merito Hataraka.] The Rangitaiki sections were confiscated lands, afterwards handed back by the Crown. I admit that it is usual for the interests of deceased owners to go back to the source whence they were derived. Mereana's interests in Rangitaiki Lots 28 and 31 were derived from her father. To Court.] The confiscation of the land by the Crown extinguished all ancestral rights. The Court which fixed the names of the grantees relied mainly on occupation. Te Hurinui Apanui (sworn) : I knew Mereana te Marohuia and Rapata Nepia. The whakapapa given by Pouawha Meihana is correct. Mereana te Marohuia died some years before Rapata Nepia. If her interests had been succeeded to before the latter's death he and Keita Rangitukia would have succeeded equally. I can give Anahera Patara's relationship to Mereana te Marohuia : — Kitawera Takotoiliu Kawheua Mereana te Marohuia. Anahera Patara.

Or.— 6¥

6

Anahera was an adopted daughter of Mereana te Marohuia. Heni Piti was a distant relative of Rapata Nepia. She was appointed his successor in Houpoto Blook because she had rights under the ancestor set up on investigation of the title to that block. I admit that my right and the right of the other successors appointed to Rapata Nepia is not as great as that of Keita Rangitukia. If I had been present in the Court I would not have; consented to my being included in the succession. Heni Piti lives at Omaio. Cross-examined by Merito.] Mereana te Marohuia derived her interests in the Rangitaiki Blocks from her father's side. Her mother belonged to Pahipoto. I think that Anahera had a right to succeed Mereana te Marohuia on account of the relationship and also on account of her having been adopted by the deceased. Re-cross-examined by Mr. Smith.] I admit that the Rangitaiki sections were confiscated land and that the ancestral title was extinguished. Merito Hetaraka (sworn) : (To Mr. Lawson). I knew Mereana te Marohuia. Will give whakapapa : — Te Kaikino Matangihiaro * Katamoe = Takotoiliu Kitawera of N'Pahipoto J (of N'Hokopu) | (N'Awa) Kawliena Mereana te Marohuia. Anahera Patara. * Katamoe — Te Mokaikai I ~ I Rangitukia Nepia Koita Rangitukia. Rapata Nepia. It should be plain to the Court that Keita and .Rapata have no claim to Mereana's interests in Lots 28 and 31, Rangitaiki, because the lists passed were in favour of definite hapus. 1 consider that the persons who should have succeeded should have been members of those hapus rather than the next-of-kin. These lands were awarded to the N'Hokopu and others and not to N'Pahipoto. Rapata and Keita have rights in the Rangitaiki Blocks under Katamoe. Mereana te Marohuia adopted Anahera as a child. Latter lived with her until Mereana died. Maori adoptions at that time were not registered. I consider that Anahera should be the sole successor to Mereana's interests in Rangitaiki Lots 28 and 31. I admit that I was responsible for the inclusion of both Keita and Anahera as successors. I remember Rapata Nepia. I know that Keita is his next-of-kin. lt is fully admitted, I will explain why eight other persons were admitted to succeed with her. The question of succession was brought up before the whole hapu, which decided that the persons who looked after Rapata during his illness should participate in his estate. It was decided to disregard the question of relationship. To Court.] We did not consult Keita Rangitukia, although she was the next-of-kin. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith.] I admit that Rapata Nepia was the next-of-kin to Mereana when she died, and that Keita is the nearest of kin to the latter, in preference to Anahera Patara. I admit that Rangitaiki Lots 28b and 31 were confiscated lands and that question of ancestral rights cannot be raised. But hapu rights obtain, and these lands were awarded to certain hapus. Heni Piti is not a near relative to Rapata Nepia, as far as I know. To Court.] I appeared before the Court and had Heni Piti put into Houpoto as sole successor to Rapata Nepia. I was asked to do so. I admit she was not the nearest of kin and that Keita was not consulted. She was at Rotorua, and was not advised as to how the interests were being dealt with. I admit that I acted wrongly in so doing, and Ido not now think I was right in putting a number of persons in as successors to Rapata's Rangitaiki interests without her knowledge and concurrence, although she would probably have agreed if she had. been consulted. Tho Court intimated that it would send its report to Wellington in due course.

Approximate Cod of Paper. — (Preparation, not given ; printing (175 copies), £8.

Authority : W. A. G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.—l 923.

Price od.\