[paratene ngata.

6

I.—3a.

Witness: First of all he states in his petition that lie belongs to Waipiro Bay. I want the Committee to understand that Tuta is not living in the Waipiro Block. When he addresses his petition from Waipiro Bay, that may lead the Committee into imagining that he is living on the Waipiro Block; but ho is not. He lives at Hiruharama. This is not a new petition. It has been before the House since 1890. This matter has been the subject of petitions to both Houses of the Legislature, and I myself and ex - Chief Judge Seth-Smith have been those who have replied to the petitions as they have come up. Tuta's recent petitions to Parliament I have not come to reply to because I considered it waste of time, is to Kereopa's letter, the Committee have had its contents read out to them to-day. We deny all the statements in that letter. The origin of that letter was this • A dispute arose between Whanau-a-lritekura and Kereopa Potaka. Hβ had called a meeting to be held at Waipa, and the hapu as a body were not in sympathy with this meeting, and refused to allow it. It was some tohunga business that they objected to, and so the hut was turned out of the pa. That is how this trouble arose and the letter was written. Eru Potaka was the father of Kereopa, and he was an important witness at the first, second, and third hearings of the Waipiro Block. Those were the grounds that he alleged all the time—the gift of lakanm to Iritekura, and permanent occupation. Up to the present there is still the same ground of claim urged—the gift to Iritekura. Tuta has to-day informed the Committee that he is the descendant of Iritekura ; but I and the Whanau-a-Iritekura Hapu totally deny that. He never claimed at any of the Courts that he was a descendant of Iritekura. That is a new statement. About tins piece of land called Tβ Matai : I deny Kereopa's statements that it did not belong to Iritekura. At the first Court Hohaia to Wora claimed that piece. They were claiming on the other side of the Kahukuranui boundary, on the Kaupeka-a-Haumia side; and one of the parties contended that the Kahukuranui boundary was on one side of Tβ Matai, and the other claim it was on the other side The Court decided that it was part of Waipiro. At the second Court that judgment was affirmed. At the third hearing the judgment again upheld the first decision. Kereopa is quite a young man, and does not know the history of this land. It was his father who put this land through the Court under the Iritekura rights. His father owned lands on the other side of that boundary, in the Tawhiti Block. We did not claim this piece. I entirely oppose lutas petition ill the Pakanui rights were handed over by him to Iritekura, and Pakanui never lived there alter he made the gift. He handed over the land and the people to Iritekura, and came away down to Turanga, and he died at Tβ Wairoa. He never occupied the land after the gift. Tuwhakairiora also gave the laud, and never returned to it after the gift. This was not land that wass permanently occupied by Pakanui and Tuwhakairiora. It was land that was conquered by them; and having obtained it through conquest, they immediately gave it to Iritekura and left it, and Iritekura occupied the land-she and her descendants-from former times right down Tuta petition alleges that llapata Wahawaha and other persons were witnesses in support of the Whanau-a-Iritekura case, and he says that their reason was because they bore a grudge again t his party in connection with the award in reference to Paraeroa Block. That block contained 1 000 acres. It is right away in the bush, and I may describe it as third-class land. Waipiro contains more than 30,000 acres, and it is first-class land, on the coast side. Rapata Wahawaha and his companions were descendants of Pakanui.

29th July, 1910. Pahathne Ngata further examined. (No. 5.) 1 The Chairman.] Have you anything to add to your statement J— Yes, sir. It has been stated by Tuta that it was because of ill feeling that Ropata Wahawaha and his witnesses gave the evidence they did at the hearing of the Waipiro case; it was stated that there was ill feeling in regard to the Paraeroa case, which had taken place prior to this. Now, Ropata and his witnesses Sgave e^dence a a c t r that time were direct descendants of Pakanui-the ancestor whom Tuta alleges EEiSHSS MiS'TSR 3S msmmmmm S ultimate result will be that the award as it no wstands will be affirmed. J. ItHS£ £H£sS H» » s»K;t g were both heard by the same Court,