2

I.—3a

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Thursday, 28th July, 1910. Khreopa Potaka examined. (No. 1.) 1. Tuta Nihoniho.] You heard the letter read out just now?— Yes. 2. Who wrote it?—l did. . .. ■. 3 Will you explain your object in writing that letter regarding this land? _ That part oi your letter which says you want another hearing of the land-is that correct ?—That is what I wish. 4 You are a member of the Whanau-a-Iritekura Hapu : who is possessed of most knowledge of the"members of that hapu in reference to this land?—My father Eru Potaka 5. Why do you desire a further of this land?— Because I consider the award was Wr °T Son Mr. Carroll.] Can you explain to the Committee how it was wrong?— Some portions of this Waipiro Block which were awarded to the- Whanau-a-Iritekura Hapu should not have been awarded to them. They had no right to them. 7. Can you indicate clearly the portions that should not have been awarded to them, and w hy? Yes Te Matai is one piece that was wrongly awarded to them. 8 Does Te Matai form portion of this Waipiro Block?—I believe so. 9. Do you not know?—l may be mistaken, but that is my impression—that it was awarded t0 to show why it was wrong to award it to Te Whanau-a-Iritekura and not to some one else?— There are a number of hapus outside the Whanau-a-Iritekura Hapu. There is the Kahukuranui boundary, which runs right through that piece. 11 Does the Kahukuranui boundary limit the possessions of Te Whanau-a-Iritekura *—Yee. 12. Then to whom should this Te Matai Block have been awarded, according to your idea I— That would have to be settled by a hearing. whnnmi-a 13 At the previous investigations was any evidence submitted to show that the Whanau-a-Iritekura should not exceed the boundary of Kahukuranui J— l am not certain as to that. I only became possessed of knowledge in connection with this matter subsequently. 14 From whom did you get your knowledge—your father ?—Most of it, yes 15. Did your father tell you that that award was wrong?—He did not say to me whether it was V| h y. r / y r o ° u n f fatller give evidence at the pr e V ious hearing ?-Yes. He was the only witness on behalf of Te Whanau-a-Iritekura. 17 Who was he witness for?—Whanau-a-Iritekura. ~.,,. 18 Did he mention anything at all about the boundary of Kahukuranui and the limitation of the area of Iritekura?—He did not mention that. I did not hear him say anything about it of /™™ yQu want a reinvest ig a tion because a certain portion of the Waipiro Block called Te Matai was awarded wrongfully to Whanau-a-Iritekura?—Yes _ , , 20 The only reason you have given so far in support of that contention is, that the boundary of Kahukuranui runs through the block, which limits on the one side the ownership of the Whanauthe descendants of Iritekura have been left out. 22 Have they 4hts to the land?-As I look upon it, they have rights. They have much better rights than o the g rß who are put in there simply through aroha. They have no descent from Irite 23 ra That is a second reason. What other reason have you got?-I think that Tuta should be put inlo the land because aroha has been shown to other people. He is a descendant of Pakanui, the man who fought for this land. 24 Do you mean that that gives a right of conquest/—Yes 25 Do you say that Tuta was wrongfully left out of the land?— That is my opinion. 26 Can you say what part of the block Tuta is entitled to 1-1 am the only member of my hapu who is advancing this Mt ; means that he h rig ht to get in On kairiora \ . , g{t divided between them ?-I heard of no division £. ?hen how did ft come into the possession of Iritekura-by descent or otherwise?-! heard Tuwhakairiora and Pakanui. The was , 32 Was all the land embraced in the conquest given to Whanau-a-Iritekura»—That is what I heard. There were other portions outside which weje given to others,