Matamataharakeke
A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal
forWai 693
by
HEATHER BASSETT RICHARD KAY
Bassett Kay Research July 1998
lUai fJl JiFA1 .~
. , . t], :j- 98 , Tt,i- j
1-"·'· ...... _1 10.-.... " ..... ~1
'w~' b'>VD
Table of Contents
Introduction Authors Commission Structure Sources
Executive Summary
1. Title Investigation 1.1 First Investigation 1.2 Title Appeal 1.3 Discussion 1.4 Summary
2. Timber Leases and Sale 2.1 Kauri Timber Industry 2.2 Timber Leases 2.3 Sale 2.4 Summary
3. The 300 Acre Reserve 3.1 Timber Leases 3.2 Relative Interests 3.3 Succession to Wikitoria Rangipiki 3.4 Partition of Reserve 3.5 Summary
4. Matamataharakeke Reserve B 4.1 Succession to Ngapera Te Akau 4.2 Alienation to Goudie 4.3 Summary
5. Matamataharakeke Reserve A 5.1 Proposal to Sell to Goudie 5.2 Changing Successors (Section 452) 5.3 Sale by Maori Trustee 5.4 Summary
6. Current Administration 6.1 Block History
Maps
6.2 Recreation Reserve 6.3 Summary
Bibliography
1
2 2 2 3 4
6
13 13 16 35 38
40 40 42 44 49
50 50 52 55 65 66
68 68 72 77
79 79 83 85 88
90 90 92 95
97
106
Introduction
Authors
Heather Bassett has a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from
Waikato University. She is also studying for a law degree. From 1993 to 1995 she
worked as a researcher for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, during which time she
co-authored the Maori Land Legislation Manual. Heather was a staff member at the
Waitangi Tribunal from June 1995 to October 1996. She is now working as a contract
historian based in Auckland.
Richard Kay has a Bachelor of Arts degree, maJonng III history, from Otago
University and a Master of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato
University. He has a Diploma of Teaching (secondary) from the Auckland College of
Education. He is based in Auckland as a contract historian.
Together, we have written the following reports commissioned by the Waitangi
Tribunal:
• 'Otawa Scenic Reserve' (Wai 210);
• 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga' (Wai 342 and
Wai 370);
• 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay' (Wai 603);
• 'Mangatawa' (Wai 47);
• 'Otawhiwhi Reserve and Bowentown Domain' (Wai 47);
• 'Huharua, Pukewhanake and Nga Kuri a Wharei' (Wai 47); and
• 'Ngaiterangi and the Crown' (Wai 215).
Commission
This report has been commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal to research the issues
raised by claim number Wai 693 lodged by Whaitiri Mikaere. The claim is to the
Matamataharakeke block located on north eastern Coromandel (see map one). The
2
claimant argues that Ngati Huarere were prejudicially affected by actIOns and
omissions of the Crown which resulted in the alienation of their ancestral land and the
loss of burial grounds and other sacred sites. The commission directed the following
matters to be researched:
(a) The circumstances surrounding the investigation of title to the Matamataharakeke block and any subsequent appeal case whereby Paraone Ie Awa was included in the title despite evidence presented in Court to refute his claim
(b) The circumstances surrounding the private alienation of most of the block, including the establishment of timber leases
( c) The establishment and subsequent partition into two reserves (Matamataharakeke A, and B) and the reasons they were awarded to their respective owners
(d) The subsequent change in ownership of the Matamataharakeke B reserve, and the eventual sale of the reserve
(e) The circumstances surrounding the sale of Matamataharakeke A, by the Maori Trustee
(f) The current administration of the Matamataharakeke block by the Department of Conservation, and its impact on urupa and wahi tapu
(g) The impact of individualisation of ownership of the Matamataharakeke block through the Native Land Court process 1
This report has been researched and written over a three month period which
commenced in April 1998.
Structure
This report follows a chronological structure which examines the events that form
the history of the block between 1870 and 1997. A separate report is under research
by the claimant that will cover the history of Ngati Huarere and their ties with
Matamataharakeke.
Chapter One looks at the initial title investigation by the Maori Land Court and the
subsequent title appeal which resulted in ownership of the 4,025 acre block being
awarded to Paraone Te Awa, Arama Karaka, Wikitoria Nohohau, and Wikitoria
Rangipiki.
1 Direction Commissioning Research, Wai 693, 8 April 1998
3
Chapter Two examines the sale of timber on the block, leases for milling purposes,
and the eventual sale of 3,725 acres of the block to a private purchaser. The sale was
approved by the trust commissioner in 1883.
Chapter Three looks at the remaining 300 acres of the block which had been an
inalienable reserve. The relative interests in the block were defined in 1899, and the
block was partitioned in 1908 in line with those interests. Leases of the block and the
succession to Wikitoria Rangipiki are also examined.
Chapter Four looks at the 223 acre Reserve B, which was awarded to Ngapera Te
Akau, the daughter of Paraone Te Awa. The successors to Ngapera were the grand
children of her brother-in-law, who then leased and sold the block to a local farmer,
Andrew Goudie.
Chapter Five gives the history of the 70 acre Reserve A, owned by the successors to
Wikitoria Rangipiki. Goudie unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the block, which
was sold by the Maori Trustee to one of the owners, Muriaroha Andrews.
Chapter Six outlines the history of the entire block since the sale in 1881. Particular
attention is given to those areas which are now administered by the Department of
Conservation as part of the Waikawau Bay Recreation Reserve.
Sources
The sources used to prepare this report are mainly written primary documents and
have principally been gathered from the following:
• Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Court in Hamilton;
• Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in Hamilton;
• National Archives in Auckland; and
• University of Auckland Library.
4
It should be noted that Maori names for iwi, hapu and individuals have been spelt as
they were in the records. This may be inconsistent with current preferred spellings.
The authors would particularly like to thank the claimant, Whaitiri Mikaere, who
prior to the writing of this report had already collected and organised a number of the
records, especially land court minutes, and made copies of her material available for
this project.
5
Executive Summary
Chapter One
In May 1871 Paraone Te Awa was awarded sole ownership of the 4,000 acre
Matamataharakeke block. Paraone claimed the block from his great-grandmother
Kirihoko as the fourth child of Te Tao. Paraone's claim was opposed by Arama
Karaka, Wikitoria Rangipiki, Wikitoria Nohohau, and others, but they were not
represented at the May 1871 hearing. An appeal against the decision was heard in
December 1871 by the same judge who had made the original decision.
At the appeal the whakapapa presented by Paraone was inconsistent with the
whakapapa presented by Nohohau, Arama and Rangipiki. Paraone could produce no
witnesses to support his whakapapa, while two witnesses for the appellants, both
knowledgeable in whakapapa, said that they had never heard he was related to the
ancestors from whom he claimed. Both sides strongly denied that they were related to
each other. Despite this the court decided that they did share a common ancestor. In
later hearings both judges and witnesses admitted they could not understand how the
court had reached this conclusion.
Paraone claimed from Te Tao, and said that he was a descendant of Te Tao's fourth
child, Kirihoko. However, no other whakapapa given to the court mentioned that Te
Tao had four children. Nohohau specifically stated that Te Huaki was the only child
of Te Tao. None of Paraone's witnesses knew his whakapapa and their reason for
believing that Paraone owned the land was because he had told them so.
At the first hearing into the block Paraone was unable to name any of the ancestors of
Te Tao. At the appeal Te Tao was included in the whakapapa presented by Arama
and Nohohau. They placed Te Tao as the son of Tukua, the brother of their ancestor
Te Tairinga. Both Tukua and Te Tairinga were children ofPaeke according to Arama,
Nohohau and Rangipiki. Therefore, Te Tao was a grandchild of Paeke. At the end of
the appeal hearing the judge questioned Paraone on his whakapapa. It was at this
6
stage that Paraone said that Paeke was the father of Te Tao, and that Te Tamnga,
Tukua and Te Tao were brothers.
It appears to be that it was on this basis that the court concluded that both parties
shared a common ancestor. However, this means that the court did not understand
that Paraone's whakapapa was inconsistent with the others, and the court was not
concerned that Paraone had no witnesses to support his version. And although
Paraone linked Te Tao to Paeke there was still no evidence to show that Te Tao had
more than one child and that Paraone was descended from Te Tao.
The judge also included Paraone in the title on the grounds that both sides had equally
exercised rights of ownership over the block. While Paraone had occupied the block
for about eleven years, and Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki had not occupied the
land, the matter hinged on whether Paraone sought permission from Arama to occupy
the land. Arama and his witnesses produced plenty of evidence to show that Arama
controlled who was on the land and how its resources were used. Arama allowed
several people there to dig gum or gold, and to clear the land and cultivate. Arama
also entered into contracts to sell timber and gum from the land. It was consistent
with Arama's version of events to say that Paraone was another person that Arama
placed on the block to protect his (Arama's) ownership rights. Witnesses for Arama
described Paraone as 'a man of no importance', and described how he had been taken
to Matamataharakeke by Arama and Te Waiparu.
The claims of both sides in the appeal were incompatible, which leads to a
comparison of the reliability of witnesses in the case. Arama had eleven witnesses,
including one Pakeha. All his Maori witnesses were either members of his own tribe,
or closely related, and all lived in the surrounding Koputauaki, Harataunga area. In
contrast, out of the twelve witnesses which appeared for Paraone, six were from the
Coromandel district, while five were from other tribes, predominantly Ngati
Kahungunu, and one was Pakeha. None of his witnesses knew anything about
whakapapa for ancestral connections to the land.
7
Prior to investigatIOn by the NatIve Land Court Matamataharakeke had been the
customary land of Ngati Huarere. Although it had not been permanently occupied
since the Ngapuhi invasion, Ngati Huarere had continued to exercise their mana over
the land. In particular the chief Arama Karaka controlled the use of
Matamataharakeke resources, and protected his ownership of the land by placing
other people on the block to perform certain tasks for him. In this way Ngati Huarere
ownership of the land was maintained and acknowledged by others.
The procedure of the Native Land Court, whereby witnesses presented conflicting
whakapapa to support their own claims to the land, meant that the Pakeha judge was
placed in a position of deciding whether the whakapapa was valid or not. Native Land
Court judges were not experts in whakapapa. The evidence of both parties to the
appeal was completely contradictory, indicating that perhaps one side was not telling
the truth. The court award meant that the judge decided to believe both versions of
events. This was not what either party wanted, as they both strenuously claimed that
the other side had no rights to the block.
Chapter Two
Matamataharakeke, being largely steep forest land, was of interest to Pakeha for its
valuable kauri timber resource. Before the title to the block had been awarded by the
court Arama Karaka had already leased the rights to cut timber over a portion of the
block. One month after title had been awarded, the timber on the block, along with a
21 year lease, was sold to A. Cadman for £450. Of this £150 was used to pay the
outstanding survey charge on the block. The survey charge may have been a
motivating factor for selling the timber. The timber rights were eventually transferred
to the Kauri Timber Company.
In August 1881 the block, excluding a 300 acre inalienable reserve, was sold to
Walter Stevens for £921. The sale to Stevens could not be approved at that time by
the trust commissioner under the Native Lands Fraud Prevention Act because
successors had yet to be appointed to Nohohau and Paraone. In April 1883 Arama
8
Karaka was appomted Nohohau's successor and Paraone's daughter, Ngapera Te
Akau, was appointed his successor. In the meantime Arama, Rangipiki and Ngapera
signed another deed selling the block to James Darrow for £1,100. This sale was
approved by the district trust commissioner, who was apparently unaware of the first
sale. The matter was investigated by the trust commissioner in Auckland, who
subsequently approved the sale to Stevens. A lack of records leaves questions
unanswered about these two sales.
Chapter Three
After the sale to Stevens only a 300 acre reserve remained in Maori ownership. This
area had been made inalienable by the Native Land Court at the first title hearing to
the block because it was the area being occupied by Paraone.
In January 1882 Arama, Rangipiki and Ngapera signed a 21 year lease allowing
access through the reserve for the purposes of the timber felling being carried out on
the rest of the block. The rental was £10 per annum. The lease was eventually
transferred to the Kauri Timber Company, which negotiated a further 14 year
extension. This was confirmed by the court in 1899, despite uncertainty as to how the
rent was to be distributed among the remaining owners.
In 1899 the relative interests in the reserve were defined by the court. At this time the
only surviving owners were Rangipiki and Ngapera. The court awarded the majority
of the reserve (240 acres) to Ngapera on the grounds that the reserve had originally
been made for her father's occupation as it was their only land. Rangipiki was
therefore awarded only 60 acres. Rangipiki opposed Ngapera's claim for the majority
of the reserve. When title to the original block was awarded the judge had found all
owners equally entitled, and the money from the sale to Stevens had been equally
divided.
Successors were appointed to Rangipiki in 1908 after a lengthy hearing. There were
several claimants to her interests in Matamataharakeke, but the court awarded 10
acres each to her nephews Pera and Wiremu Tamati, and divided the remaining 40
9
acres between the whanau of Huihana Rangituia and Rlhltoto Matma, who were
nieces of Arama and Nohohau. Rangituia and Mataia were descended from the first
marriage of Te Tairinga, while Pera and Wiremu Tamati were descended from Te
Wharekiri. The court did not make an award to Ngapera, and thus rejected her claim
to be the remaining descendant of Paeke.
The reserve was partitioned in 1908 on the application of Ngapera's husband, Hare
Te Raharaha. Ngapera was awarded 223 acres as Matamataharakeke Reserve B, and
Rangipiki's successors were awarded 70 acres as Matamataharakeke Reserve A. Both
parties agreed to this division, even though it represented an extra ten acres for the
successors of Rangipiki.
Chapter Four
Ngapera died in 1908 and had made a will which left Matamataharakeke B to her
husband Hare Te Raharaha, who would not otherwise have been entitled to succeed
because he was Ngapuhi. However, the court mistakenly appointed Hare's brother,
Henare, as Ngapera's successor. This mistake was never recognised or corrected by
the court. On Hare's death the grandchildren of Henare were appointed to succeed
him, however, in 1929 the court realised that Hare and Henare were not the same
person, and the three grandchildren were appointed as successors to Henare. They had
no tribal affiliation to Matamataharakeke and lived in Northland.
Under tikanga Maori, if land had been gifted by ohaki (deathbed statement) to a
person who was not of the same blood line, then when that person died the land
would revert to its traditional owners. Therefore, on Hare's death Matamataharakeke
should have been awarded to the surviving descendants of Paeke. However, Native
Land Legislation between 1909 and 1927 allowed that if a spouse had inherited land
by will, to which he or she was not customarily entitled, then when the spouse died it
would go to his or her next of kin. This meant land was allowed to pass out of tribal
or hapu ownership. After 1927 the law was changed so that, on the death of the
spouse, the land would revert to those who were customarily entitled. It is impossible
10
under today's legislation to make a will in favour of a spouse who is not otherwise
entitled.
In 1949 Reserve B was leased to Andrew Goudie, who now owned part of the original
Matamataharakeke block. The lease was for £15/15/-- per annum. The lease was
signed by only two of the three owners because one had died. The lease was
confirmed by the Maori Land Court on the condition that the signatures of the
successors to the third owner would be obtained. This was never done.
In 1962 a meeting of owners was held in Kawakawa (all the owners lived in
Northland) to consider a proposal to sell the block to Goudie for £2,000. The meeting
unanimously agreed, and the sale was confirmed by the court. Native land leglisation
allowed the court to appoint as owners of Matamataharakeke three N gapuhi with no
tribal affiliation, and who were not living in the area. It was therefore not surprising
that the owners were willing to sell the land. At no time was any attempt made to
ensure that Reserve B remained in tribal ownership.
Chapter Five
In June 1962 a meeting of the owners of Matamataharakeke Reserve A rejected a
proposal to sell the block to Goudie for £700. One year later Goudie applied for the
Native Land Court to summon another meeting to reconsider the offer.
At the same time one of the owners, Muriaroha Andrews, applied to have the block
partitioned to provide her with a coastal section. At the time Andrews owned 12 out
of the total 70 shares. However, under section 452 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 a
previous succession order, which had incorrectly been in favour of Andrews, was
overturned by the chief judge and new succession orders made which reduced
Andrews' share-holding to only 2.4 shares.
This meant she was now unable to obtain a partition of any reasonable size. On her
application the court made an order under section 175 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953
vesting the reserve in the Maori Trustee as agent of the owners. Section 175 provided
11
that if the size of individual share-holdings III the block meant that an eqmtable
partition was impractical the block could be vested in the Maori Trustee who would
then offer it for purchase by one of the owners. Andrews was the only owner to bid
for the block, and in February 1966 it was sold to her for £715. No meeting of owners
was held to see if they agreed to the land being sold. Although the reserve remains
Maori land, it is now the exclusive property of the Andrews whanau, and the other
Ngati Huarere descendants no longer have any legal rights to it. This was, in effect, a
compulsory alienation that did not allow for the possibility that the owners may have
wished to keep the block, even if they individually owned only small shares. There
was no recognition of the desirability of tribal ownership.
Chapter Six
Today the original 4,000 acre Matamataharakeke block has been divided into many
sections which are put to a number of uses, including coastal holiday housing, rural
lots, a state forest and a recreation reserve. A 328 hectare area was acquired by the
Crown in 1963 from a private owner and gazetted as part of the Coromandel State
Forest Park. Land owned by Goudie, being 400 acres on the western side of the block,
along with Matamataharakeke Reserve B was sold to the Crown in 1976, and gazetted
as a recreation reserve. In 1980 the Andrews whanau leased Matamataharakeke
Reserve A to the Crown to be part of the recreation reserve. Today these areas are
part of the Waikawau Bay Recreation Reserve which is administered by the
Department of Conservation. The recreation reserve includes a camping ground,
parking area, three houses, water supply, farm buildings, air strip and rubbish dump.
A fenced one acre wahi tapu reserve, being an urupa, is surrounded by the recreation
reserve.
12
1. Title Investigation
1.1 First Investigation
In 1869 an application was lodged with the Native Land Court by Paraone Te Awa for
an investigation into the ownership of Matamataharakeke. The block was identified
on a survey map as being 4,100 acres.
On 7 October 1870 the Native Land Court, under Judge H.A.H. Monro, sat in
Whitianga to hear Paraone's claim for Matamataharakeke. 1 Opposing Paraone's claim
were Hera Putea, Arama Karaka, Wikitoria Nohohau, Wikitoria Rangipiki, Riwaii Te
Kiore, Waraki, Parata Te Mapu and several others who went unidentified. They were
represented by Davis and MacKay.
Davis said that the survey of the land appeared to overlap land claimed by N gatimaru
that had been leased to Cruickshank and Smart. He also stated that their clients were
unwell and therefore unable to attend the court sitting. Similarly, MacKay stated that
Arama Karaka was unwell 'up the Thames' and that his wife Wikitoria Rangipiki was
nursing him. Wikitoria Nohohau and Hera Putea were also sick. Exactly what
illnesses they were suffering from is not recorded in the minutes. MacKay requested
that another date be set for the hearing.
The claim was therefore adjourned by the court, which then proceeded to hear the
evidence of the surveyor, William Gregory Clarke. A survey map of the block
identifying 4,100 acres was produced at the court sitting. The surveyor said that the
lines had been cut on the ground and the angles pegged. The boundaries of the land
had been pointed out to Clarke by Paraone, and they were shown to not overlap with
any land that had already been granted.
1 Hauraki Minute Book 6, fols 282-283 and Coromandel Minute Book 2, fols 441-442, 7 October 1870
13
Clarke had a bill of £ 150 for the survey and claimed the only way he could get thIs
sum paid was if a lien was placed on the grant. The court ordered that a survey lien be
made.
MacKay had requested that the case be adjourned to Shortland [Thames], but Paraone
asked that it be held at Coromandel. Both the court and MacKay agreed to this, and
Paraone's claim was then heard again on 17 May 1871 before Judge Monro.2
Paraone
gave his evidence first and stated that the block belonged solely to himself. His claim
was from an ancestor called Te Tao of Ngatihineao, and he gave the following
whakapapa:
TeTao 1 ____________________________________ ___
1
Te Huaki Korotamo Marama Kirihoko
1
Karewa
1
Kahukino
1
Paraone Te Awa3
He stated that Matamataharakeke was Te Tao's property, claimed through descent
and occupation, not conquest. He claimed that Te Tao and his descendants had lived
on the land without opposition. In the past they had pa, cultivations and houses on the
block. Paraone was now living on the block and had plantations there. He asked to be
granted the block without any restrictions on the title.
Paraone's survey boundary was disputed by Te Matenga Ngaupara, who claimed a
triangular piece on the north-western side.4 Te Matenga's claim was from Ramuri,
2 Coromandel Minute Book 2, fols 16-22, 17 May 1871 3 ibid, fol 16. The way the whakapapa is recorded in the minutes makes it unclear whether Paraone was
claiming Kirihoko as a child of Te Tao or Te Huaki. Some witnesses in the appeal hearing appear to have understood that Paraone was claiming through Te Huaki, although they refute that claim. When Paraone repeats his whakapapa at the appeal he places Kirihoko as a child of Te Tao. The authors believe that Paraone gave his whakapapa as presented above, but the evidence may have been misread at the appeal hearing.
4 ibid, fol 17
14
whose people had killed the original owners of the land, Ngatlturepe, Ngatltakaro
and Ngatitopetopea. Te Matenga claimed that his elders had lived on and cultivated
the land, planting kumara and potatoes brought from Te Arapaparahi. He said that his
boundary was between Matamataharakeke and Waikawau rivers. He stated that
Kamakamawhakura belonged to him and was given in payment for the daughter ofTe
Huaki. Her husband was Te Kitoka. Under cross-examination by the assessor, W.M.
Hikairo, Matenga said he did not live on the land because he had land elsewhere, and
was now the sole claimant and the last of his iwi. The land was given in payment for
adultery, and the boundary was at a bend in the beach which divided Waikawau from
Matamataharakeke.
Te Matenga was supported by Ngakapa Whanaunga, who was living at Whakapu. 5 He
said that his ancestor, Te Horeta, had told him that Te Uruhau was the boundary and
Harakoka was the name of the place where the boundary met the sea. He said that Te
Uruhau had been ceded by Te Moananui and Riwai. Ngati Ramuri had a pa there
called Motukauri, which had been occupied by 340 men two years after Paraone came
to Matamataharakeke. Ngakapa had been occupying it for nine years, ever since
returning from the Waikato war, during which time Paraone had not objected to his
occupation. Ngakapa explained that Harakoka and Te Taroa were names for the same
place, Te Taroa was the name of the beach and Harakoka was where the boundary
met the beach. Harakoka was the name of one end of the beach and Te Taroa the
other end, and the angle of the bend ofthe beach was the boundary.
After this evidence Paraone was recalled. He said that the proper boundary was the
Waikawau river, but he had agreed with Hata to a different boundary because he had
taken some of his land away when surveying another block. 6 He said there were no
houses on the land included in his survey. Paraone did not know Te Toroa as the
name for the beach, which he called Omatua. Harakoka was name for the mouth of
Waikawau. Paraone said he had never heard of the gift of the land claimed by
Matenga.
5 ibid, fols 18-19 6 ibid, fol 19
15
Paraone said that he had been born at Haratanga and had lived at Matamataharakeke
when he was a child. After the Ngapuhi raids his parents had taken him away from
Matamataharakeke and he did not return until after the fighting at Rangiriri had
ended. He had lived at Matamataharakeke since that time. He did not remember his
parents and his knowledge of the land carne from his elders, Te Tuarehu and Kiha.
Kiha lived at Matamataharakeke and had never told Paraone that Te Matenga had
been ceded some land. Under cross-examination he maintained he had not heard of
the woman mentioned by Matenga. He also said that Motukauri pa was not included
in the survey.
A Pakeha miner, Leadrnan Whitehead, gave evidence and said that Ngakapa's houses
were built at least 1 Y4 miles from the western side of the boundary at Waikawau
stream. He had seen the area only a week previously and was employed on the survey.
He also said that there was no bend in the beach.
The judge deferred his decision on the case until the next day, 18 May 1871, when the
Matamataharakeke block was awarded to Paraone as sole owner. Although he had
requested no restrictions, the judge ordered that the portion of the block containing
Paraone's house and cultivations would be inalienable.7 This was an area of 300
acres.
1.2 Title Appeal
The court's decision was then appealed by Wikitoria Rangipiki, Ararna Karaka and
Wikitoria Nohohau. The appeal was heard on 15 to 18 December 1871 at Kapanga,
Coromandel. The appeal was heard by the same judge who had made the first
decision, H.A.H Momo.
7 Coromandel Minute Book 2, fo123, 18 May 1871
16
At the hearing Paraone was represented by Leary, and Arama and the other appellants
were represented by Preece.8 The evidence given by Paraone in the previous hearing
was admitted as evidence for this case and read out to the court in English and Maori.
Preece then stated the position of the appellants:
his side entirely opposed the claim to Paraone Te Awa and that he has no claim in a direct line to this land - that he has not given the name of his tribe and that the ancestor he mentions is that of the counter claimants and is . .. wrongly stated - that it is only lately that he went to Matamataharakeke he was taken there by Te Waipuru and Arama Karaka to dig gum - the gum dug was given to Arama Karaka because the land was considered to belong to him and it was sold to [a] European who will be brought in Court to give evidence as to the date and it will be proved that Paraone never went to Matamataharakeke and when he went there afterwards he asked permission to do so and afterwards when Paraone set up some claim to the land Paora Te Putu sent and brought him back and it will be found that any transaction made in reference to this land was made by Arama Karaka - and further that the ancestors of Arama Karaka were the party to give the land to the ancestors ofRiria and which land Paraone stated belonged to him. 9
Wikitoria Nohohau then gave her evidence.1O Nohohau was of the Mango hapu of
Ngatitamatera and said that Matamataharakeke belonged in the past to Tuataki of
Ngati Huarere. She then gave whakapapa linking Tuatiki to herself, Arama and
Wikitoria Rangipiki:
I Rangitaiki = Te Tairinga =
I Paretiraroa = Te Wharekiri
Te Rangihurimoana
I Hinengako =Taui
I Wikitoria Nohohau
I
Arama Karaka
Tuatiki __ ~Raukatauri (Ngati Maru)
I Teoteo
I Urehamama
I Paeke
Tahua
= Kohina
I Pototiki
I Ruatere
I Wikitoria Rangipiki
I
I Tukua
I TeTao
I Huaki
Parekaumoana
I Whaitua
I
Uruwhainga Marama
I I Tapeka no Issue
I no Issue no Issue
8 Coromandel Minute Book 2, fols 216-266, 15-18 December 1871 9 ibid, fol 217 10 ibid, fols 217-224
17
This whakapapa showed that the only living descendants of Tuatiki were Nohohau,
Arama and Rangipiki. Nohohau provided further evidence of her link to these
ancestors by explaining that as a child she had been called Parekaumoana, and that
her own child was named Tapeka.
Nohohau said that she did not know the ancestors named in Paraone's whakapapa and
that Te Huaki was the only child of Te Tao. ll She therefore did not recognise
Kirihoko as a child of Te Tao, as claimed by Paraone. Tuatiki, Teoteo and
Urehamama all lived permanently at Matamataharakeke, and the pa was called
Kamakamakura. Paeke, Te Tairinga, Te Wharekiri and Te Rangihurimoana also lived
at Matamataharakeke and Harataunga. Nohohau and Arama were born at Harataunga,
but fled to Tauranga with their father Hinengako after the Ngapuhi battle. After being
in Tauranga and Horotiu the iwi went back to Koputauaki and visited
Matamataharakeke and Harataunga (see map one). At this time there was no one
living on the land. While Wikitoria Nohohau then went to Turanga to live with her
husband, Arama went to live at Matamataharakeke. She said that at this time Paraone
was living with the Patukirikiri at Wharekawa and Whakatiwai, and then came to
Kapanga with the Patukirikiri. According to Nohohau, Paraone did not belong to her
hapu, and only came to live with them after she went to Turanga.
She came back to the Coromandel after Te Kooti's pa at Ngatapa was taken, and she
lived at Omam. At this time Paraone was at Matamataharakeke and he sent a letter to
Arama, asking him about the survey_ They had a meeting at Omam:
Wikitoria [Rangipiki] asked the question of Paraone what was his survey for was it dividing a portion to me and a portion to another. I did not pay much attention I was rather poorly. Paraone proposed that the land should be surveyed and spoke in opposition - Paraone did not answer Wikitoria's question. I said to Paraone let one survey the land - the white man to do it is Graham. Paraone assented but the first thing we knew was that he got it surveyed himself 12
11 ibid, f01 219 12 ibid, fol 221
18
Nohohau was cross-examined by Leary, who asked why she did not appear at the hrst
hearing to which she explained she had been at Ohinemuri planting potatoes. The
second time the case was heard she was at Ohinemuri 'talking about the mail'. She
commented that 'Planting potatoes and investigating land are both great subjects'. 13
She was also cross-examined by the court, which questioned her about the
whakapapa. Nohohau stated that Paraone had no claim to the land through ancestry.
She also said that they had not gone to oppose Paraone's survey because by the time
they heard about it, it was almost completed.
Wikitoria Rangipiki was then sworn and identified herself as being of the Te Mango
hapu of Ngatitamatera: 14
Tuatiki
1
Teoteo
1
Urehamama
1
Paeke _____ 1 ______ _
Tukua Tairinga
1
Wharekiri
1
Pototiki
1
Ruatere
1
Wikitoria Rangipiki
Rangipiki said that these ancestors lived at Kamakamakura pa on the south-eastern
side of the mouth of the Matamataharakeke stream. She knew that Riria Karepa
owned a piece of land called Te Mangeao given by their ancestors to her ancestors.
She did not know Paraone's whakapapa but knew that Paraone's mother was called
Kahukiri and his father was Karupoka, although she did not know where they came
J3 ibid 14 ibid, f01s 224-232
19
from or their hapu. She had only known Paraone since he had been living with
Patukirikiri at Kapanga, where he had been until he was taken by Te Waiparu to
Mangungukaiota.
Rangipiki said that Te Waiparu took Paraone away on account of Hera Putea who was
a widow living secretly with Makoare. 15 They were hiding with Hana and Kaita, when
a war party of Te Ranapia seized property belonging to Pitini, a slave of Kaita. Pitini
heard about the situation and came to demand his property from Te Ranapia. Te
Ranapia would not give up the property and Pitini left. That night following this
meeting Pitini's horse was stolen and Te Ranapia's house was burnt. Te Ranapia
accused Pitini of burning his house and at this stage Paraone then took up the cause of
Pitini, who was his brother in law. Te Ranapia challenged Paraone to a fight.
Paraone's wife and daughter then left Mangungukaiota to get Hori Waiparu to stop
Paraone fighting and take him away. Te Waiparu and Arama took Paraone away on
the day that Ranapia had set for the fight.
Rangipiki said that the reason Paraone was taken away by Te Waiparu was that they
were related. Although she did not know their exact relationship, she did know that
their relationship was not through her ancestors, and she reiterated that this was the
first time she had ever seen Paraone at Matamataharakeke:
I had been to Matamataharakeke many times before we had cultivations there at that time and before that period - I do not recollect the year Paraone was taken away by Ie Waiparu. Mr Haustun had been living at Ohauru some considerable time - at the time when the measles came into the country (1853) When we cultivated at Matamataharakeke we did not see any other persons cultivations or houses there. 16
She went on to say that they had placed a Pakeha, Jack Waikato, on the land who had
built a vessel there to carry kauri to the mill at Harataunga. At this time Paraone lived
at Mangungukaiota. She said that it was shortly after this period that they were all
involved in gum digging in the area and Paraone and Te Waiparu were cultivating
land at Tauwhare to supply food for the gum digging.
15 ibid, fol 226 16 ibid, fol 227
20
Arama and Rangipiki, accompanied by Hopa and Tamati Tute of Ngapuhi, went to
Matamataharakeke and cleared some land. They went back to Tauwhare while they
waited for the clearings to dry, and then returned for planting. They then left Hopa
and Tamati to cultivate at Matamataharakeke. At this time Paraone was living at
Tauwhare with Te Waiparu, and knew Arama and the others were cultivating at
Matamataharakeke, but made no opposition to them doing so.
Paraone also played no part in controlling gum digging at Matamataharakeke:
We went there - Arama Karaka and my right (tikanga), Hoam, Karaitiana, Te Waiparu and other people asked us to allow the gum on Matamataharakeke to be dug -Paraone was there and they did not ask Paraone's leave - the gum was dug and it was sold to Mr R Copeland at Cabbage Bay. After the gum was dug on Matamataharakeke the people spoke to Arama to sell the gum and he consented and the gum was sold. Paraone had not lived at Matamataharakeke before the gum was dug there or before we went and made the clearings I mentioned. 17
Although Hopa died not long after being placed on Matamataharakeke by Arama,
Tamati was still living on the block at the time of the hearing. They also placed other
people on the land. Two people, Wikirahi and Winiata, were put there to 'cultivate
our mara', and Hona was taken there by Arama's younger brother to search for gold.
Rangipiki explained that Hona had sought their permission to search for gold. A
Pakeha, Sandy McGregor, was placed at Harataunga in the early 1860s from where he
shipped timber including some from Matamataharakeke sold by Arama. Paraone did
not object to this sale, and did not receive any of the payment, which was a vessel
called Victoria. All of this evidence shows that although Arama, Nohohau and
Rangipiki did not occupy Matamataharakeke themselves they protected their rights to
the block by placing others there. This was how they exercised mana over
Matamataharakeke.
According to Nohohau Paraone first went to Matamataharakeke at the time of the
Waikato war, after seeking permission from Arama:
He went first to Arama at Omaru to ask permission to go there to dig gum on Matamataharakeke, he was living at Motutapu. I heard him make the application there were only myself Arama and Te Meihana present the greater number of the people had fled to Waihou. Arama consented and Paraone went there to dig gum. Hopa and
17 ibid, fol 229
21
Tamati were still there at this time looking after the land for us - Paraone planted food there for the purpose of gum digging. We did not hear that he claimed the land at time nor did we hear of his making any claim till the fact of his survey. IS
Rangipiki when cross-examined said that she did not know the names of places on the
block given by Paraone, and gave her own names for those places instead.
She repeated that Paraone had not cautioned her against selling the kauri and neither
did he warn the Pakeha purchaser. She explained that she had not attended the first
investigation because she was ill, and missed the second hearing because 'we were
engaged on Govt business'. 19 She also claimed that Paraone could not have gone to
Matamataharakeke without her knowledge. Under cross-examination from the court
she said:
Paraone is no relation of mine - Te Waiparu had no interest whatever in Matamataharakeke. I do not know of any relationship between myself and Paraone - I do not know the name ofParaone's Hapu.20
Arama was the next to give evidence. He said that Matamataharakeke belonged to
him, and gave his whakapapa:
Tuatiki
1
Teoteo
1
Urehamama 1
Paeke ___________________ 1 __________________ _
Te Tairinga
1
Te Wharekiri
Te Rangihurimoana
1
Hinengako
1
Tukua
1
TeTao
1
Huaki
----------------1
----1 _____ -- Parekaumoana Uruwhanga Marama
Wikitoria Nohohau Arama Karaka
18 ibid, fol 230 19 ibid, fol 231 20 ibid, fol 232
22
1
Tapeka
Arama explained that Parekaumoana died when he fell off a cliff at Tuhua, and that
Tapeka had no children. As for Marama, she had been taken to Tamaki by Ngapuhi,
and was killed there by Pakahorahora, a hapu of Ngati Paoa. He said that the people
were called together to avenge her death, and that he went to Tamaki with that war
party.
He knew that Paraone's mother was called Kahukiri and his father was Karupoka and
his grandfather was Te Pahau and grandmother was Tope. Arama had seen them at
Waikawau in the Hauraki Gulfbut did not know where their land was located:
who knows where his land was - I did not see him at Matamataharakeke - if he had done so I should have seen him - I did not see Tope living at Matamataharakeke or Harataunga if she lived there I should have seen her - she died at Waikawau and is buried there. I did not see Pahau's death - Pahau was the father of Paraone's mother. 21
Arama's own ancestors had lived at Matamataharakeke at a pa called
Kamakamakura. Arama had lived there as a child during which time 'I did not see
either Paraone or his father or mother. ,22 He knew of ancestral burial grounds
between Kamakamakura and Matamataharakeke which were called Waikarakeke.
He had first seen Paraone as a child at Katikati living with Ngatipare and Ngatipakira
and did not see him again until the iwi returned from the Waikato, where they had
been forced to flee because ofNgapuhi attacks. On their return they lived at Kapanga
and Paraone was living with the Patukirikiri, but he had to leave when he quarrelled
with Te Ranapia. Arama said he was part of the group who took Paraone away to
Mangungukaiota where they all lived together for some years before they went to dig
gum at Ahirau and then at Waikawau. They eventually returned to Matamataharakeke
to dig gum where a dispute developed over ownership of the gum and land:
The gum was given up to me because they knew the land belonged to me and I returned it back to them the gum was sold to R Copeland - they did not ask Paraone's permission to dig gum he was there Paraol)e made no objection to my exercising authority over the gum. Paraone had not lived on Matamataharakeke up to that time -we all returned 'to Ahirau and left no one there. Paraone did not return to
21 ibid, fol 233 22 ibid, fol 234
23
Matamataharakeke to live till the Waikato war and after the gum digging. I constantly visited the land I went to Taiharuru and we made a clearing there and from there went to Matamataharakeke and made a clearing there - this was the same year as the gum digging. Hopa Tamati Wikitoria and Myself were the parties who went. Hopa and Tarnati were the parties I left to look after the land - Paraone was living at Ahirau with Te Waiparu. I went openly - Te Waiparu and all his people knew of my going - I left those persons on the land and when the clearings were dug I went and burnt them off. I did not put any other persons on the land - I sent Hona there to look for gold -he asked me to let him go, I consented and sent Pereniki and Hoki with him. They searched for gold at Matamataharakeke - Paraone had not lived there at that time - the two whom I left in charge were still there. Paraone never made any objections to my putting these people on the land. Paraone was well aware of what I had done.23
Arama explained that Paraone only went to Matamataharakeke after he had asked
Arama's permission to go there to dig gum and that Paraone had not made any claims
to the land at that time. The first Arama knew of Paraone' s claim was when Paraone
sent a letter informing him of his intention to survey the block. At a meeting at
Omaru, Arama and his hapu opposed the survey and Arama said Paraone agreed not
to survey the land. However, Paraone went back and immediately started the survey.
Arama only found out about the survey when it was nearly completed.
Riria Karepe was then called as a witness. Riria was the daughter of Paora Te Putu
and was of Ngatitamatera. She had grown up in Ohinemuri, but had lived at
Koputauaki most of her life. She knew Arama and the other claimants, and confirmed
their whakapapa. She also knew Paraone, and she said:
I have been in the habit of listening to the statements of the chiefs as to the ancestors of the people - I never heard it stated that Paraone was a descendant ofTe Huaki. He was not a man of importance when he went to live with Te Waiparu - I have not heard it from the conversation of the chiefs that Paraone owned any land in this peninsular. 24
She reiterated that if Paraone had any claim to land in the district she would have
known of it and said she did not know where he came from.
Riria said that she owned a portion of Matamataharakeke, known as Te Mangeao -
Ngaure. Her ownership was claimed from her ancestor Tuterangipouri, to whom the
land had been given by an ancestor of Rangipiki. She said that the rest of
Matamataharakeke had been in the possession of the ancestors of Rangipiki, Nohohau
and Arama up until the present time.
23 ibid, fo1238
24
She confirmed that Paraone had made no objection to the sale of timber to McGregor,
and that the sale had been known by the whole iwi.
Hohepa Kapene of Ngatitamatera was the next witness. Kapene lived at Ohinemuri
and before this he had been living at Koputauaki. He said he knew Paraone and
remembered when he had gone to Matamataharakeke to live. He said it was:
between 57 & 58. I know this from have written in a pukapuka. I know this from our having lived together - he lived at Kapanga before - he lived from 1857 to 63 at Mangungukaiota - during all those years he lived continually at Mangungukaiota and Paparoa. I should have known it if he went to any other place. I never heard him make claim to Matamataharakeke during that time. I heard that Arama Karaka owned the land. I knew this because he was a relation ofTe Waiparu. I did not hear that Waiparu owned the land but it belonged to Arama - I heard of and saw Arama Karaka visiting the land25
He said that Paraone had not originally lived at Matamataharakeke but had gone there
to dig gum with the permission of Arama. Kapene, when cross-examined by Leary,
said that Arama 'lived periodically at Matamataharakeke, Harataunga &
Mangungukaiota. ,26
When cross-examined by the court assessor Kapene said that he had known that the
land belonged to Arama because Arama was a relation ofTe Waiparu, but as an adult
he learnt that the land belonged to Arama through his own ancestors and not through
Te Waiparu. Kapene reiterated that he knew Paraone, and Paraone was not related to
Arama.
Makoare Te Pukeroa was the next witness. Pukeroa was from Patukirikiri and said
that he knew Paraone from when they were living at Kapanga. Pukeroa confirmed the
evidence of the previous witnesses saying that he remembered when Te Waiparu took
Paraone away. Paraone lived with them at Kapanga and he did not visit, mention or
make claim to Matamataharakeke. He reiterated what the other witnesses had said,
that Paraone sought Arama's permission to go to Matamataharakeke:
24 ibid, fols 240-241 25 ibid, fol 242
25
I recollect Paraone going to Matamataharakeke to live it was in 1864. I kriow this because we went together. Before we went we asked permission of Arama Karaka -Paraone asked. I stayed at the Island but he went to Omam to ask permission of Arama Karaka. I know this because he told us all that he had asked permission and Arama had agreed. 27
The next witness was Matenga Ngaupara of Ngatiwhanaunga who owned land
nearby. He said that he knew Matamataharakeke and the whakapapa of Arama well.
He had seen Paraone's survey of the land and said that it took in a portion of his own
land. He stated that he had never heard of a number of the people that Paraone had
cited as owners of the land and went on to state that:
I went with Mr Frazier saw Paraone's survey. Wikitoria Rangipiki owns the land in the Haratanga side and Arama owns the Matamataharakeke side - We had a quarrel with Te Tararau about Waikawau - I never heard Paraone make claim to land in this district formerly ... only lately since he has lived on the land. 28
He confinned the evidence of the other witnesses as to the movements of Paraone
prior to his claim for Matamataharakeke and, like the other witnesses, he reiterated
that 'During the whole of the korero from fonner times from my childhood to the
present times I never heard it stated that Paraone had any land in this or the Thames
district. ,29
The next witness was Richard Copeland, a Pakeha who had lived at Cabbage Bay in
the 1850s. Copeland said that he remembered Arama and his party going to Ahirau
and selling him gum. He said that:
Paraone he was not considered a man of any importance but Arama Karaka, T e Waiparu & Wikitoria were considered the chiefs. I have continually lived in this district except a year I lived in Auckland. I understood from my intercourse with the natives I heard that Arama Karaka owned considerable land in this District. I had conversations with the natives & McGregor about purchases of the timber. I never heard Paraone ever make an objection if he had done so I should have heard it I believe - I have never considered Paraone as a man of any importance?O
26 ibid, fol 243 27 ibid, fol 244 28 ibid, fo1247 29 ibid 30 ibid
26
The court then heard from Hoari Te Kiripukeke from PatUkinkm who confIrmed the
evidence of earlier witnesses about the circumstances of Paraone' s arrival at
Matamataharakeke. He thought that Paraone was from 'Te Ngapaoa,.3!
Kiripukeke was then followed by Te Meiha of Ngatitamatera, who was a son of Te
Waiparu, and was one of the party who went to dig gum at Matamataharakeke with
Arama. He said that Te Waiparu had told him that Matamataharakeke belonged to
Arama. He cited a number of occasions when he was involved in working the land at
Matamataharakeke where permission was sought from the owner, Arama:
I recollect Hona's going on the land afterwards to search for gold he asked Ararna's pennission. 1 went with him. Paraone did not go with us. We dug at the mouth of Matarnataharakeke and found a few objects of gold and came back. This was well known by all the people. Paraone was at Mangungukaiota. We returned to that place. Paraone did not make any objection to our going. Hona did not ask Paraone's pennission he only asked Arama - Paraone never made any objection about our going there. I do not know that Paraone is in any way related to these ancestors. Paraone went lately to Matamataharakeke. I do not know the day he started from the Island. He went with Makaore to Ararna to ask pennission and then went to Matarnataharakeke. Arama Karaka was at Omaru at that time. I was there then.32
The next witnesses was Mata Paraone of Ngatimaru who gave evidence as to the
invalidity of Paraone' s ancestral claim:
I arn a woman who has been in the habit of taking part in the discussions of the business of my tribe. I have heard that Arama's ancestor is Te Huaki. I don't know (admit) that Paraone has any claim to this land - I do not know that he has any relations to the ancestors stated by Ararna. I first knew Paraone living with the Patukirikiri we took a slave from here at that time he was living here squatting at the time (I supposed so at the time). I don't know who his tribe is. I never heard he had a claim to Matamataharakeke or Harataunga if he had a claim there I should have heard ofit.33
The next witness for the appellants was Tamati Tute, one of the men Arama had
placed on Matamataharakeke. Tamati said that he had heard the land belonged to
Arama and Rangipiki and Hera Putea. He had been told this by Paora Te Putu, who
had said so publicly on various occasions. He explained how Arama took him to the
land and said he lived there 'under the mana of Arama and Wikitoria,.34 He said
31 ibid, fol247A 32 ibid, fol 249 33 ibid, fols 249-250 34 ibid, fol 251
27
Paraone was not livmg at Matamataharakeke when he (I amatI) had been taken there
by Arama, and that Paraone had nothing to do with him going to the land, nor did he
make any objections to his presence.
That was the end of the case for the appellants, and Paraone himself now gave his
evidence. He repeated his claim to Matamataharakeke through his descent from Te
Tao:35
TeTao _________________________ 1 ________________ _
1 1
TeHuaki Korotomo Marama Kirihoko
----_1 ______ -- 1
Toaangina Te Ara Karewa Urihanga Parekaumoana Rangitapirau 1 1 1
1 1 Marutetaiawa Kiha Te Maunu Kahukiro
no Issue no Issue no Issue 1 1
no Issue ____ J ____ Paraone Te Awa
1
Potipoti Poukure Te Ngahuru
1 1 1 . . no Issue no Issue no Issue
This whakapapa included much more information than that originally submitted by
Paraone at the first hearing. At that time he did not specify the descendants of the
other children ofTe Tao.
Paraone said the land was not acquired by conquest. Te Tao had lived on the land in
his pa Mamakuea. Paraone said that he had personally lived on the land from the time
of the Taranaki war until the present day and that his iwi had cultivated and been
buried on the land and that he had never heard anyone disputing his title. He said that
he lived on Matamataharakeke as a child until Ngapuhi attacked, when some of his
elders were killed and some were captured. His parents took him away, and when
they died he was brought up by Te Puia, and lived with his mother's hapu. He said his
father had no claim to the land only his mother. Paraone said that he had 'heard from
Kiha that the land belonged to me. ,36
35 ibid, fols 252-253 36 ibid, f01 253
28
He denied ever asking Arama's permission to cultivate on Matamataharakeke:
I cultivated because of ancestry and to hold the land which had been taken on account of an offence. Some of my relations are buried on the land. Some in olden times and latterly Mere my wife and Turuhua my foster parent. I heard what the witnesses said about the time we went to dig gum - "Nana tana whakaaro, naku ana taku", What they stated was not correct. We all worked as we chose (mahi uoa atu) at Waikawau and other places, the right to the land was not brought up at all. Tamati Tate and the others asked. I never did - my party went under my authority37
Paraone identified seven others who were in his party and said that he did not 'know
whether any of these asked Arama's permission.,38
Under cross-examination from Preece, Paraone said that he was in no way related to
Arama and that his mother's iwi were Ngatihineao. He reiterated that his iwi had been
wiped out and that he claimed the land through his mother's people not his father's.
When asked why he lived with the Patukirikiri and not Arama's hapu he said:
Because I was not related to them.
Which is your tribe? My mother was a Ngatihineao.
Where are they? All dead but myself, they were from the Ngatihuarere.
What did Waiparu belong to? To Ngatitamatera. I am related to him through his mother.
Why did you not live with your own ancestors? My whaea had married into the Patukirikiri tribe and I lived with them, my own immediate relations were all dead
39
He said that in 1855 he was living at Koputauaki at which time Matamataharakeke
and Harataunga were occupied only by the Pakeha called Jack Waikato. He said that
at this time he had protected his rights to the block when it was to be given to
Ngatipaoa:
I have claimed Matamataharakeke before when it and Harataunga were taken for a hara by Ngatipaoa. It was mum. Paora Te Putu, a Ngapuhi lived there, he was accused of "maketu", was sent away. Wikitoria brought him back to Harataunga, his wife and another old woman were with him These two women tried to sell the land, Patene Puhata and Paora interfered (long story). Paora Te Puta demanded land from Wikitoria for the "hara". She wouldn't give any. Paora took from Harataunga to Waikawau including Matamataharakeke. Wikitoria's party went howling to
37 ibid, fo1s 253-254 38 ibid, fol 254 39 ibid, fol 255
29
Mangugukaiota. Paora took the land and gave it to Ngatipaoa as payment for their dead. I interfered and held Matamataharakeke. Arama did not aid me in holding the land from Ngatipaoa ... I claim the land from ancestry and from holding it against Ngatipaoa. I didn't go to live on it at the time. My holding this land was after Hona went to dig gold. I claimed the land as soon as I saw it in danger of being taken. I did not ask Paora's leave about it. I spoke to him about it, I told him my ancestry to show that the land was mine, that my land should not be taken from the "hara". Paora asked me for the boundaries and I told him. 40
No other account of this 'threat' to Matamataharakeke was provided by witnesses
from either side.
Paraone said that when digging gum:
We used to dig any where on the land of our tribe. I did not go to the island to ask Ararna's leave to dig gum. I did not go to Omaru to ask Arama. I heard Arama say so in Court. I did not go to Arama. I am not connected with them nor they with me41
Paraone also claimed that it was he, not Arama, who placed Tamati on
Matamataharakeke. He said Tamati asked his permission, and that he went there with
Tamati. Paraone said that Te Waiparu was the leader of the first gum digging
expedition, and that he did not see Hona go onto the land, although he heard that
Paora Te Putu had given him permission, and that he did not object because 'Paora
had the "tikanga" in everything connected with the land and the people,.42
Paraone said that he was told all about the land at Matamataharakeke as a child
although he did not live there. He said that on returning from a journey both he and
Papa Kiha came back by way of Matamataharakeke and it was at this time that Kiha
pointed out Te Mangeo as belonging to an ancestor of Riria. Paraone said that he then
wrote to Arama before he made the survey to tell him this information. He said he did
this because:
He was the owner of land adjoining - Wikitoria objected and said that she wouldn't permit it. Wikitoria Rangipiki told Wikitoria Nohohau to allow the survey to proceed and she consented43
The judge questioned Paraone about his whakapapa, to which he replied:
40 ibid, fol 256 41 ibid 42 ibid, fo1 257 43 ibid, fo1 258
30
I said that the land belonged to Te Tao, his father was Paeke. I don't know who was Paeke's father, the land belonged to them. Te Tao belonged to Ngatitakaao and Ngatihuarere. The Ngatihuarere were the original proprietors of the land - Paeke had 3 children, Te Tairinga, Tukua and Te Tao.44
This is the first time that Paraone mentioned Paeke as an ancestor, and came after
Arama and Nohohau had given their whakapapa. However, both Arama and Nohohau
had said that Te Tao was a child of Tukua, not Paeke. Paraone also admitted that he
did not know the whakapapa back from Paeke to Tuatiki.
The next witness to appear was Hata Paka of Cabbage Bay who said that he first saw
Paraone when he was put on the land at the time ofthe Taranaki war:
I used constantly to go to and fro to Matamataharakeke before Paraone lived there. I supposed it was Paraone's land. I never heard that Arama Karaka had a superior right - I was not paid to come here.45
The next witness, Patara said that he lived at Matamataharakeke and had first met
Paraone when he came to Matamataharakeke to live at the time of the Taranaki wars.
He said that he did not know about any dispute over the title to the land at
Matamataharakeke and implied that the land belonged to Paraone saying 'I did not
hear that the land belonged to Arama and Paraone. Tamati and I cultivated there. I
know that some dead were buried there by Paraone. ,46 Under cross-examination from
Preece he said that he was related to Paraone.
The next witness, Wi Turuki, was Ngatikahungunu and had come from Tauranga. He
had lived at Kapanga, Ohinemuri and Te Mata and had moved to Matamataharakeke
in 1857. He had met Paraone in 1864 and had 'never heard that anyone disputed
Paraone's title or that Arama claimed the land as his. Paraone lived there in
undisputed possession until this claim was made. ,47
44 ibid 45 ibid, fol 259 46 ibid 47 ibid
31
Paraone's daughter, Ngapera Te Akau, was his next witness. She said she had lived
with her father on the block since the Taranaki war and said that she had: 'Never
heard that the title was disputed. Paraone was in undisputed possession. ,48
Paurini of Ngatiraukawa was the next witness. He had lived at Ohinemuri and
Auckland before going to live at Matamataharakeke approximately 12 years earlier.
He considered Paraone to be the owner of the land, which he had never heard to be in
dispute before the court hearing. Under cross-examination he said that he did not
know the history or ancestry of the land.
The next witness, Te Waka Pitini, from Ngatikahungunu was as consistently vague as
the previous witnesses had been. He said:
I live at Motutapere. I know Paraone. I have known him since a boy. I know the land before the Court. I consider Paraone to be the owner. I first knew him at Kapanga. I forget his hapu. I never heard that anyone but Paraone had any right to this land49
He said that Paraone had supported him in a dispute with Ranapia and that he had
gone with Paraone to Matamataharakeke in 1859. He said that there were 15 in the
party and that some of the party were slaves and that he himself was one. He knew
nothing of Para one asking for Arama's permission.
Paraone's next witness was Maika from Ngati Kahungunu, who came to
Matamataharakeke in 1853. Maika admitted that he had never taken part in the land
discussions, but said that he knew Paraone as the only owner of the land.
The next witness, Mitai from Patukirikiri, said he had known Paraone since childhood
and had first known of his living at Matamataharakeke at the time of the Taranaki
war. He was part of the party who went to dig gum. He said 'We did not ask Arama
Karaka's permission. We heard from Paraone that the land was his (Paraone's). I
never heard that it belonged to Arama Karaka. ,50
48 ibid, fol 260 49 ibid 50 ibid, fol 261
32
The next witness, Hamiora Mangakahia, said that he first saw Paraone at
Matamataharakeke in 1870. He said that his relatives believed the land at
Matamataharakeke to be Paraone's although he did acknowledge 'that the land
outside did belong to Arama Karaka. ,51 Under cross-examination from Preece he said
that he did not know Paraone's whakapapa. He said 'I went south in 1862 to
Tauranga. I have not heard any discussions about this land. I considered the land
Paraone's because I saw him living on it & he told me it was his. ,52
The next witness, Mohi Mangakahia, Hamiora's brother said that he knew the
Matamataharakeke and had heard that it belonged to Paraone:
I have heard it said that it belonged to Paraone. I don't know through my own knowledge. I have known since Paraone first went there. I have not been on the land but have heard that he had cultivations there. Paraone came to me before the survey to ask about the Pakeha law in regard to his timber which was being cut by Cruikshank and Smart. I advised him to have the land surveyed and taken through the Court as he couldn't act until he got a title. Arama was not present. I heard after Paraone had had the land surveyed that Arama disputed his title. I did not hear that they had had a dispute before. I always heard that Paraone was the owner. I never heard that Arama had lost his right. 53
Under cross-examination from Preece he said that Paraone had told him the land
belonged to him. He also knew that Arama had sold timber from the land to
'Cruikshank and Smart somewhere after 1860.,54
The case continued on the next day when the first witness to appear was Kapanga T e
Arakuri, a chief who lived at Kapanga. Te Arakuri knew Paraone and was familiar
with the disputed block of land. He had known Paraone since the time of the Remuera
feast (this was later corrected as the Kohimarama Conference) and believed him to
have sole ownership of the land but did acknowledge that he had 'heard slightly ... of
some one coming before Paraone. ,55
Under cross-examination from Preece he said that he had heard that others had a
claim to the land following the survey. He did not know Paraone's whakapapa but
51 ibid, fol 262 52 ibid 53 ibid 54 ibid, fol 263 55 ibid
33
knew him because he had been living with him at various places for a long time. He
said that Paraone had told him that he owned the land.
Paraone was recalled and said:
Arama Karaka did not appoint to meet me in regard to the survey. Mr Clarke spoke to him about it. Arama told Mr Clarke to go in a week and that he would follow - Arama made no appointment before that. The only conversation I had with Arama was when I drove Buchanan off. I told Arama that I owned the land that Mr Buchanan was cutting timber on56
The next witness sworn was e.O. Davis who said he was an agent for Arama and that
he had gone with Paraone and Whitehead to look at the line surveyed by Clarke. He
had been told by Arama that a portion of the timber he had sold had been included in
the surveyed land of Paraone. He said that he was told by Arama that:
The old native [survey] line was on the ridge and I went to see if Clarke's line was on the ridge. The natives told me that these dams had been included. I only found one. I had only a vague notion of the boundary. I could not say whether the line was more to the north than the natives told me it was. 57
This closed the evidence regarding the appellants' case. The separate claims of
Ngaupara and Riria were then heard. At this stage of the court sitting Arama was
recalled. He said that:
We admit that Riria Karepe has land within this survey. Her pieces are Mangeo and Ngaure. One boundary line would include both pieces as they join. I know the boundary, we have no dispute with Riria about them. Te Taira and Te Ngutumanu belong to Matenga Ngaupara. The boundary shown by Frazier is correct on the tracing. 58
The two portions claimed by Ngaupara and Riria were then excluded from the
Matamataharakeke block by the judge.
The court gave judgment to the effect that both parties had proved descent from a
common ancestor and had equally exercised rights of ownership over the block. The
court ordered that Arama, Rangipiki and Nohohau pay £4 for the costs of the hearing.
56 ibid, fol 264 57 ibid, fols 264-265 58 ibid
34
The court ordered that the certificate of title for the block known as
Matamataharakeke was to include the names of:
• Paraone Te Awa;
• Arama Karaka;
• Wikitoria Rangipiki; and
• Wikitoria Nohohau.
The court ordered that the piece containing 300 acres of land was to be made
inalienable by sale, gift or mortgage for a longer period than twenty one years. 59 A
certificate oftitle was issued on 12 June 1873 in favour of Para one, Arama, Rangipiki
and Nohohau to the Matamataharakeke block of 4,025 acres (see map twO).60
1.3 Discussion
The claimant, W. Mikaere has this to say about the court's decision:
(1) We contend that had the Native Land Court done its job properly in the investigation of this land and listened to the whakapapa given in Paraone T e Awa's evidence in the case of the 15/16.12.71 they would have found it to be inconsistent with and unlike the whakapapa he had given as evidence on the 17.5.71 when he was awarded ownership of the entire block.
That the whakapapa Te Awa states in both cases on the 17.5.71 and 15/16.12.71 are both uncorroborated by any witness/so
That Te Awa could not trace his whakapapa further than Te Tao and only after hearing Wikitoria's whakapapa did he mention Paeke.
(2) We contend that based on the points raised in (1) that the judgment of that Native Land Court with respect to Paraone Te Awa's claim that he was a descendant of "the ancestor who owned the land", was a fraudulent claim.
(3) That Paraone Te Awa should never have been put onto the original certificate of title, nor should his daughter Ngapera Te Akau have succeeded to his interests in 1883.61
The whakapapa presented by Paraone was certainly inconsistent with the whakapapa
presented by Nohohau, Arama and Rangipiki. Paraone could produce no witnesses to
59 ibid, fols 265-266 60 Certificate of Title 3/185, LINZ, Hamilton 61 Matamataharakeke notes by W. Mikaere
35
support his whakapapa, while Mata Paraone and Riria Karepe, both knowledgeable in
whakapapa, said that they had never heard he was related to the ancestors he claimed.
Both sides stated that they were not related to each other. In later hearings judges and
witnesses admitted they could not understand how the court had concluded that both
sides shared a common ancestor.
Paraone claimed from Te Tao, and said that he was a descendant of Te Tao's fourth
child, Kirihoko. However, no other whakapapa given to the court mentioned that Te
Tao had four children. Nohohau specifically stated that Te Huaki was the only child
of Te Tao. None of Paraone's witnesses knew his whakapapa and their reason for
believing that Paraone owned the land was because he had told them so.
At the first hearing into the block Paraone was unable to name any of the ancestors of
Te Tao. At the appeal Te Tao was included in the whakapapa presented by Arama
and Nohohau. However, they placed Te Tao as the son of Tukua, the brother of their
ancestor Te Tairinga. Both Tukua and Te Tairinga were children of Paeke according
to Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki. Therefore, Te Tao was a grandchild of Paeke. At
the end of the appeal hearing the judge questioned Paraone on his whakapapa. It was
at this stage that Paraone said that Paeke was the father of Te Tao, and that Te
Tairinga, Tukua and Te Tao were brothers.
It appears to be that it was on this ground that the court concluded that both parties
shared a common ancestor. However, this means that the court did not understand
that Paraone' s whakapapa was inconsistent with the others, and the court was not
concerned that Paraone had no witnesses to support his version. And although
Paraone linked Te Tao to Paeke there was still no evidence to show that Te Tao had
more than one child and that Paraone was descended from Te Tao. Witnesses for
Arama said that Paraone was not related to Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki.
The judge also included Paraone in the title on the grounds that both sides had equally
exercised rights of ownership over the block. While Paraone had occupied the block
for eleven years, and Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki had not occupied the land, the
36
matter hinged on whether Paraone sought permission from Arama to occupy the land.
Arama and his witnesses produced plenty of evidence to show that Arama controlled
who was on the land and how its resources were used. Arama allowed several people
there to dig gum or gold, and to clear the land and cultivate. Arama also entered into
contracts to sell timber and gum from the land. It was consistent with Arama's
version of events to say that Paraone was another person that Arama placed on the
block to protect his (Arama's) ownership rights. Witnesses for Arama described
Paraone as 'a man of no importance', said they did not know what tribe he came
from, and that he was, in effect, rescued by Arama and Te Waiparu and taken to
Matamataharakeke.
The claims of both sides in the appeal were incompatible, which leads to a
comparison of the reliability of witnesses in the case. Arama had eleven witnesses,
including two Pakeha. All his Maori witnesses were either members of his own tribe,
or closely related, and all lived in the Koputauaki, Harataunga area. Paraone's
witnesses were friends or acquaintances who had known him at various times and
places, such as the gum fields, which suggested they travelled together and had no
fixed land base for much of this time. Out of the twelve witnesses which appeared for
Paraone, six were from the Coromandel district, while five were from other tribes,
predominantly Ngati Kahungunu, and one was Pakeha.
What is clear from the evidence of the witnesses is that they listened to each other's
evidence and tried to keep their own evidence consistent with that of the person who
had proceeded them, to the extent that they used the same phrases and delivered those
phrases in the same order. A number of Paraone's witnesses for example made the
following points:
• they did not know his whakapapa;
• he had told them he was the owner of the land;
• they had known him at one point in their lives;
• they had never heard of Arama Karaka's claim to the land; and
• they did not live in the disputed area or had done so for a short period of time.
37
None of Paraone's witnesses were able to validate his ancestral claim by the
presentation of whakapapa, and their evidence as to his claim through occupation was
very brief and lacked detail which linked him to the block.
1.4 Summary
• Paraone's application for the title to Matamataharakeke was first heard on 7
October 1870, but was adjourned because Arama, Nohohau, Rangipiki, and others
who opposed the claim were unable to attend due to illness.
• The case was then heard on 17 May 1871, but Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki
were still not represented in the case. Paraone was awarded sole ownership of the
block.
• The decision was appealed by Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki. The appeal was
heard in December 1871 by the same judge who made the original decision.
• Paraone claimed Matamataharakeke from his great-grandmother Kirihoko as the
fourth child ofTe Tao.
• Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki claimed from Tuatiki and denied that Paraone was
a descendant of Te Tao. According to them Te Tao had only one son, the
descendants of whom were all dead.
• Witnesses for the appellants, who were all local and had close tribal affiliations,
gave evidence that Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki were the owners of
Matamataharakeke and that Paraone had no rights to the block. Paraone was
described as <a man of no importance', who had no ancestral ties to the land, and
who was given permission by Arama to occupy the block.
• Paraone and his witnesses, who were not all from the area, claimed that Paraone
did not seek Arama's permission to go to Matamataharakeke. His witnesses did not
know Paraone's whakapapa but believed him to be the owner of the block.
• After hearing the whakapapa presented by the appellants Paraone said that Te Tao
was the son of Paeke. However, according to Nohohau and others Te Tao was
Paeke's grandson.
38
• The Native Land Court awarded title to Paraone, Arama, Nohohau, and Rangipiki
on the grounds that they shared a common ancestor (Paeke) and that they had both
equally exercised rights of ownership over the block.
• The court's decision that both parties shared a common ancestor means that the
court did not understand that Paraone's whakapapa was inconsistent with the
others, and the court was not concerned that Paraone had no witnesses to support
his version.
• The court's other finding that both parties had exercised equal rights of ownership
makes no acknowledgment of Arama' s claim to have placed Paraone on the block.
In the face of conflicting evidence the judge appears to have decided to believe
both versions of events. The decision recognises that Arama, Nohohau and
Rangipiki exercised mana over the block by controlling who occupied it, and at the
same time grants Paraone ownership of the block by virtue of his occupation.
39
2. Timber Leases and Sale
This chapter briefly examines the background of the kauri timber industry in the
Coromandel. It then looks at the leasing of the Matamataharakeke block for timber
extraction and the block's eventual sale.
2.1 Kauri Timber Industry
Historian Russell Stone has said that in the 1850s the demand for timber was largely
confined to the demand for masts and spars for ships. Later demand for timber
resulted from the goldfields' need of timber for structural and heating purposes.}
There was considerable money to be made from milling timber, and the speculators
involved formed companies with fresh capital from Auckland that allowed them to
expand their operations by selling shares and by buying more milling equipment. 2
In
later years the industry diversified by producing a wider range of timber products and
expanded by exporting to Australia. Successful saw-millers also began to realise the
future potential use of the land as pasture for farming. 3
Stone identified the following factors as causing the 'unstoppable onslaught upon the
kauri forests within Hauraki rohe and why this development was hostile to the
interests of iwi there.,4 There was a limited degree of timber wastage, but more
significantly production output was accelerated due to:
• new technology;
• population growth;
• developing construction industry; and
• the investment of Auckland capital. 5
1 Russell Stone, 'The Economic Impoverishment of Hauraki Maori through Colonisation, 1830-1930', Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Paeroa, 1997, p 30 (Wai 686, A12)
2 ibid, P 27 3 ibid, pp 28-29 4 ibid, P 30 5 ibid, pp 30-33
40
Despite a decline in the domestic demand for kauri in the 1880s the timber compames
did 'not shut up shop' but rather expanded because the industry had acquired a
'dynamism of its own.' They competed more fiercely for smaller markets and profit
margins by:
• borrowing more heavily from banks;
• buying up timber rights and land from Maori as cheaply as possible;
• taking the best timber and leaving the rest; and
• by sacrificing price for quantity. 6
By 1888 a Melbourne based consortium formed the conglomerate Kauri Timber
Company. This gave them control of the major kauri companies and forests in the
region. The assets of the Kauri Timber Company included more than 30 mills in the
Coromandel, Thames and Great Barrier, as well as steamships, sailing ships and
barges:
The assets of the new company, registered in Melbourne, absorbed 146,000 acres (59,860 hectares) ofland with a further 257,000 acres (105,370 hectares) leased, and a potential kauri harvest of 1600 million feet of timber. In time the company came to proclaim itself the largest employer oflabour in New Zealand, with some 5000 on the payroll in 1906?
However, the company did little better than its predecessors and Stone has said that it
tried to overcome its difficulties by keeping costs down and making aggressive deals
when buying forest land from Maori. 8
Stone concluded that the outcomes from milling in the Coromandel were:
• the destruction of a priceless natural resource;
• damage to Maori culturally, spiritually and financially;
• Maori gained little financially because the industry was aggressively competitive
and margins were narrow;
• the settler community gained by getting an excellent building material; and
• the industry provided the 'economic take off for the Auckland region.9
6 ibid, pp 33-34 7 Gordon Ell, King Kauri: Tales & Traditions of the Kauri Country, The Bush Press, Auckland, 1996, p
94 8 Stone, p 34 9 Stone, p 35
41
2.2 Timber Leases
We already know that some of Matamataharakeke had been leased for timber cutting
before the title to the block was investigated by the Native Land Court. Reference to
such a lease was made during the title investigation hearings. When giving evidence
in support of Paraone, Mohi Mangakahia said that he knew Arama had sold timber on
Matamataharakeke to 'Cruikshank and Smart somewhere after 1860,.10 Although no
written lease was registered, Arama had leased approximately 680-700 acres to
Cruikshank, Smart and Company by January 1872 (see map three). 11 It is not known
how much was paid for the lease or the length of the lease. James Cruikshank was a
leading Auckland merchant, who was heavily involved in the development of a
coastal steamship service for northern New Zealand. 12 He and his company were part
of the injection of Auckland capital into the Coromandel timber industry described by
Stone.
In January 1872, just one month after title was awarded, the rights to the timber on
the rest of the block were sold to Alfred Jerome Cadman, a saw-miller who later
became Native Minister. He had owned and operated a sawmill in the Coromandel
goldfield from 1855, and was later a successful builder and contractor in Auckland.
He returned to the Coromandel region in 1867, where he exercised considerable
power, initially through land ownership and local politics and subsequently as a
prominent national politician with the 1890 Liberal government. 13
10 Coromandel Minute Book 2, 15-18 December 1871, fo1263 1l Shown on map attached to transfer 2901, LINZ, Hamilton 12 DNZB, volume two, M6, p 284 13 DNZB, volume two, C2, pp 78-81. Cadman had strong views concerning Maori land tenure and
ownership. In 1891 as Native Minister he decided against the recommendation of the Rees Commission that Maori should be involved in the administration of their land. He instead decided to extend the powers of the Native Land Court and abolish the Native Department. Alan Ward has said 'the Rees-Carroll approach [to land tenure] was delayed by the appointment as native minister of Alfred Cadman who favoured the purchase rather than leasing of Maori land.' In 1893 Cadman was charged with speculating in Maori land in Hawkes Bay, he denied the charges and was awarded nominal damages. Later in that year he oversaw the end of Maori assessors as advisers in the judicial process which brought Maori communities completely under the control of the Pakeha system oflaw.
42
The transfer to Cadman was signed on 18 January 1872 by Arama Karaka Tarakawa,
Wikitoria Rangipiki, Wikitoria Nohohau and Paraone Te Heihei (another name for
Paraone Te Awa).14 The deed sold all 'standing, growing, fallen and dead timber' on
the block (excluding the area already leased to Cruikshank and Smart) to Cadman,
and gave him all the necessary rights over the block to fell and remove the timber (see
map three). The timber was sold for a total price of £450, of which £200 had already
been paid, £ 100 was to be paid when the deed was signed, and Cadman was to pay
the outstanding £150 to the surveyor. This took care of the £ 150 survey lien that had
been registered by W. G. Clarke to pay for the survey of the block. IS It may have been
that the debt to Clarke was a motivating factor in the sale of the timber rights.
As well as selling the timber, the transfer deed provided for the land to be leased to
Cadman for 21 years for the purposes of milling and removing the timber. The rental
was to be £1 per annum if demanded by the owners.16 The deed was translated into
Maori by James Mackay (licensed interpreter), and witnessed by Hohepa Kapene
(settler). The transfer was approved by trust commissioner Daniel Pollen on 9
February 1872.17
The timber rights to the block were later transferred from Cadman to timber
merchants James Darrow and John Read. In the early 1880s Darrow and Read
assigned their rights to the Union Steam Saw Moulding Sash and Door Company
Ltd. 18 The Union Steam Saw Moulding Sash and Door Company Ltd was, in the
1870s and 1880s, one of the largest employers in the district employing over 300
men. 19 The company was later one of many that were amalgamated into the Kauri
Timber Company.
14 Transfer 2901, LINZ, Hamilton 15 Notice of Lien, 7 October 1870, C 197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court Hamilton 16 Transfer 2901,LINZ, Hamilton 17 ibid 18 Whitaker and Russell to District Land Registrar, 14 March 1884, on Caveat 29, LINZ, Hamilton 19 Duncan, Mackay, Working the Kauri: A Social and Photographic History of New Zealand's Pioneer
Kauri Bushmen, Random Century, Auckland, 1991, P 99
43
2.3 Sale
In August 1881 the Matamataharakeke block, excluding the 300 acre reserve which
had been declared inalienable by the Native Land Court, was sold. The purchaser was
Walter Vere Stevens from Auckland, who was described on the title as a 'gentleman'.
The purchase was made by two deeds, one signed by Arama and Rangipiki on 10
August 1881, and one signed by Ngapera Te Akau, the daughter of Paraone, on 19
August 1881.20 In return Arama and Rangipiki received £691 and Ngapera received
£230, a total purchase price of £921. This meant that the purchase money was split
into 4 equal parts of £230, but Arama received £460 because he was being paid for
Nohohau's share. Both deeds were translated by Richard de Thierry, a licensed
interpreter, and witnessed by E. Dufaur (solicitor acting for Stevens) and T.M.
Haultain (Justice of the Peace). Arama and Rangipiki signed the sale deed at
Haultain's office in Auckland. 21 It is also likely that Ngapera' s sale took place in
Auckland, but the location is not specified on the deed.
Haultain was also a trust commissioner under the Native Lands Fraud Prevention Act
1881 for the Auckland district. Trust commissioners were required to enquire into the
circumstances surrounding Maori land alienations before confirming the transaction.
The commissioner was to ensure that the purchase money had in fact been paid, that
liquor or arms played no part in the transaction, that the land was not held in trust,
that the sellers had sufficient other land and that they understood the transaction.
Haultain refused to approve the sale immediately, even though he had witnessed the
transactions. This was because both Nohohau and Paraone had died (1876 and 1875
respectively), but their successors (Arama and Ngapera) had not yet been appointed
by the Native Land Court. It was therefore not certain that Ngapera was entitled to
sell the interest of her father Paraone and that Arama could sell his sister's share.
20 Transfer 4968 and Transfer 4965, LINZ, Hamilton 21 Declaration by Richard de Thierry, 11 July 1883, enclosed with Transfer 4968, LINZ, Hamilton
44
The translator, de Thierry, made a declaration that Arama fully understood that he
was receiving payment for both his share and that of Nohohau. 22 Because of this it
was agreed at the time that Nohohau's share of the money should be held by Native
Land Court Judge Mair until the succession was finalised. However, when Dufaur
requested that Mair hold the funds, the judge refused because he did not have an
account for that purpose?3 As a result Haultain agreed that Stevens should hold the
money until succession was ordered, and Haultain would not approve the sale until he
was satisfied that Arama had been paid.
The succession questions were determined on 5 April 1883 at a court sitting in
Coromandel. The first to be decided was Arama's application to succeed Nohohau.
The witness was Rangipiki, who told the court that Nohohau had been an owner in
Matamataharakeke and had died sometime ago at Koputauaki and that she, Rangipiki,
had been present when Nohohau had died. She went on to say:
Arama Karaka is her only surviving relation. They were brother and sister. He is also an owner in the block & I am also an owner. Dec. [Deceased] left no children. She had children but they are dead. Beside kama Karaka no other brother or sister. There were other of the family but they are all dead - whether brothers or sisters I cannot say but they have been dead a long time24
There were no objections to the succession and the court ordered that Arama succeed
Nohohau.
The next business of the court was the succession of Ngapera to her father Paraone.
Rangipiki was also a witness for Ngapera, and said that she had known Paraone and
that he had died on 7 December 1875 at Koputauaki. She was present at the death and
had seen him buried. She went on to say that 'He has no relation alive at present time.
He has a child and that child was the claimant. He has no other children or
grandchildren. Paraone Te Awa was one of the owners. ,25
22 Declaration by Richard de Thierry, 11 July 1883, enclosed with Transfer 4968, LINZ, Hamilton 23 Declaration by Edmund Dufaur, 11 July 1883, enclosed with Transfer 4968, LINZ, Hamilton 24 Coromandel Minute Book 3, fols 196-197, 5 April 1883 25 Coromandel Minute Book 3, fo1197, 5 April 1883
45
This quote is interesting because it would appear that Rangipiki is stressing that there
was no relation between her whanau and Paraone. The court ordered that Ngapera Te
Akau succeed Paraone as an owner in Matamataharakeke.
It appears that shortly after the succession orders were made the trust commissioner
moved to approve the sale. Unfortunately, a search of the surviving records of the
Auckland trust commissioner held by National Archives Auckland, while revealing a
file reference, indicates that the commissioner's file itself no longer exists.26
Although the commissioner's specific record is missing, the surviving outward
letterbooks contain some correspondence on the matter, as do title documents.
The sale to Stevens was then complicated by the fact that on 6 April 1883 Arama,
Rangipiki, and Ngapera signed another sale ofMatamataharakeke to James Darrow, a
contractor from Thames.27 Darrow, along with John Read, a Thames timber
merchant, was already milling the timber on the block, under the agreement made
with Cadman in 1872.28 Darrow held a contract to supply kauri sleepers to the
government, and has been described as very anxious to obtain timber rights. 29 It is
likely that Darrow wished to protect his access to the timber on the block by
attempting to purchase the freehold title to the block.
Darrow paid £1,100 for the block, with the exclusion of the 300 acre reserve. The
deed does not record how the money was to be divided among the three owners. The
deed was probably signed in Thames, and was translated by W.G. Nicholls (licensed
interpreter) and Harry Kemick (resident magistrate).
Kenrick was also the trust commissioner for the Thames district under the Native
Lands Fraud Prevention Act. The commissioner at Thames recorded that on 12 April
1883 he investigated an 'absolute sale' of the Matamataharakeke block by Arama,
26 While National Archives Auckland, Maori Land Court Auckland record series BABG A52, contains letters and applications for 1878, 1883 and 1884, but not 1881 - the relevant year - file references were 1886 for Arama Karaka and Wikitoria Rangipiki's deed, and 1892 for Ngapera Te Akau's deed.
27 Transfer 4951, LINZ, Hamilton 28 Caveat 341, LINZ, Hamilton
46
Rangipiki, and Ngapera to Darrow for £1,100. 30 The commissioner examined the
vendors personally with the help of an interpreter. He also said the cash was paid in
his presence. A certificate approving the sale to Darrow was signed on 20 April 1883.
It would appear that Arama and the other owners did not reveal, under examination,
that they had already signed a transfer to Stevens.
The solicitors acting for Darrow and Stevens then both acted to protect the rights
supposedly acquired by their clients. Darrow's transfer was immediately registered as
a caveat on the title to the block. 31 In return Dufaur wrote to the District Land
Registrar requesting a caveat preventing any dealing by Darrow:
I am informed and believe that from improper solicitation and false representations the above named natives have been induced to execute another instrument in favour of a person named Darrow with the intent to defraud and deprive Mr Stevens of the land purchased by him. 32
On 24 April 1883 the Auckland trust commissioner received a letter from Darrow's
solicitor protesting against the approval of Stevens' purchase, and passed this
information on to the lawyer acting for Stevens:
Sir, I have the honor to inform you that I have this day received from Mr James Darrow through his Solicitor Mr Miller of the Thames an objection to the trust commissioner affixing his certificate to a certain deed. Arama Karaka & ors [ others] to Mr W.V. Stevens Matamataharakeke Block situated in the District of Coromandel. 33
On 22 May 1883 the Commissioner advised that he had decided to resolve the matter
by holding a sitting in his office on 28 May 1883 to 'hear and determine any
objections you may have to raise against my certifying a Deed or Deed's transferring
the Matamataharakeke Block to Walter Vere Stevens,.34
29 AH. Reed, The Story of the Kauri, AH. Reed & AW. Reed, Wellington, second edition, 1954, p 152
30 MLC-A 9/4 Trust Commissioner's Certificates Granted, 1882-1885, p 22 - No 50, National Archives Auckland
31 Caveat 341, 7 April 1883, LINZ, Hamilton 32 Dufaur to District Land Registrar, 11 April 1883, on caveat 29, LINZ, Hamilton 33 MLC-A 9/3 Trust Commissioner Outward Letterbook, 1878-1885, 83.23, National Archives
Auckland 34 MLC-A 9/3 Trust Commissioner Outward Letterbook,1878-1885, No 27, National Archives
Auckland
47
Unfortunately, there is no surviving record of the commissioner's sitting. Such a
record would likely have revealed the background to both transactions. The outcome
of the commissioner's sitting was that Haultain approved Stevens' purchase. On 10
July 1883 the commissioner sent Stevens' solicitor the certificates approving the sale
deed by Arama and Rangipiki, and the sale deed by Ngapera.35
The fact that there were two sales of the block raIses some questions that,
unfortunately, cannot be answered without further information:
1. What happened to the £1,100 paid by Darrow as witnessed by Kenrick. Did Arama
and the others refund the money to him?
2. What 'false representations' convinced Arama and the others to sign the transfer to
Darrow. What did they think they would gain, besides a higher price, or was there
anything they did not like about the sale to Stevens?
3. Why did Haultain approve Stevens sale? Was it because it was chronologically the
first, because Haultain himself had witnessed it, or was there anything else
fraudulent about Darrow's deed?
The fact that Darrow was willing to pay £ 1,100 for Matamataharakeke suggests that
the owners did not receive adequate consideration from Stevens, who only paid £921.
This works out to be equivalent to approximately 5 shillings per acre. Although a
comparison with other sales at the same time would be needed to determine what the
value of the land was, Stone has said that Maori land in the area was generally bought
as cheaply as possible. In 1884 Stevens was to sell the timber on the block for £750,
which indicates that the land and timber combined were worth more than he paid for
the block.
It is not known whether the Trust Commissioner enquired as to whether the Maori
sellers had sufficient other land for their support as required by the Native Lands
Fraud Prevention Act. Presumably, the existence of the 300 acre reserve satisfied the
commissioner that Ngapera, Arama and Rangipiki would not be left landless.
35 MLC-A 9/3 Trust Commissioner Outward Letterbook,1878-1885, No 27, National Archives Auckland
48
2.4 Summary
• Although no written lease was registered, Arama had leased approximately 680-
700 acres to Cruikshank, Smart and Company by January 1872.
• In January 1872, just one month after title was awarded, the rights to the timber on
the rest of the block were sold to Alfred Cadman for £450. Of this £150 was to pay
the survey charge on the block. The timber rights were later transferred to James
Darrow and John Read, and then to the Union Steam Saw Moulding Sash and
Door Company Ltd.
• In August 1881 the Matamataharakeke block, excluding the 300 acre reserve
which had been declared inalienable by the Native Land Court, was sold to Walter
Vere Stevens. Arama and Rangipiki received £691 and Ngapera Te Akau received
£230, a total purchase price of £921. This was equal to approximately 5 shillings
per acre.
• The sale to Stevens could not be approved by the trust commISSIoner until
succession orders were made for Wikitoria Nohohau and Paraone Te Awa. In
April 1883 Arama was appointed successor to Wikitoria Nohohau and Ngapera Te
Akau succeeded Paraone.
• The sale to Stevens was then complicated by the fact that on 6 April 1883 Arama,
Rangipiki, and Ngapera signed another deed selling Matamataharakeke to James
Darrow, who paid £1,1 00 for the block, with the exclusion of the 300 acre reserve.
• The trust commissioner held a sitting to investigate both sales on 28 May 1883.
The records of that investigation are no longer extant.
• In July 1883 the trust commissioner approved the sale to Stevens.
49
3. The 300 Acre Reserve
3.1 Timber Leases
After the sale of the block to Stevens the only portion of Matamataharakeke that
remained in Maori ownership was the 300 acres that had been declared by the Native
Land Court to be inalienable by sale or lease for a period of more than 21 years. On
27 January 1882 this reserve was leased to Walter and Francis Stevens by Ngapera,
Arama, and Rangipiki. I The lease was for 21 years, and the rental was £1 0 per
annum. The lease did not specify how that payment was to be divided between the
three owners. The lease gave Stevens the right:
to make all manner of roads and ways and dig saw pits and erect mills and other buildings and make water courses and canals in and upon the said land and make and construct booms, dams and wharves upon or across any streams, rivers and creeks on upon or through the said land and dam up or divert any such streams, rivers or creeks and to raft flow and drive upon down and across any such streams rivers or creeks any trees or timber and to deepen the beds of any such streams rivers or creeks and to do all such other acts matters and things in upon above the said land for consuming carrying away removing or otherwise making use of and converting to their own use and benefit the trees and timber standing or being on that portion of Matamataharakeke sold by us2
Therefore, the lease essentially allowed Stevens access through the reserve to
transport timber that had been milled from his land. At the same time the lease
guaranteed the owners the right to occupy the reserve block:
and the said Francis Worrel Stevens and Walter Vere Stevens do hereby agree that it shall be lawful for the lessors to use occupy and enjoy the land hereby demised and to run their pigs, horses and cattle thereon, provided nevertheless that they shall personally occupy it and shall not have any power, privilege right or authority to permit any person other than themselves to occupy or use the land hereby demised for any purpose whatsoever 3
The lease was translated by Richard de Thierry and the signatures of Ngapera (along
with that of her husband Patera) were witnessed by Dufaur and T.W. Haultain. The
signatures of Arama and Rangipiki were witnessed by George Rayner, (Justice of the
1 Lease 564, LINZ, Hamilton 2 ibid 3 ibid
50
Peace), and de Thierry. The lease was approved by Haultain as trust cOlmmsslOner on
18 February 1882.4
In 1884 Stevens sold the timber on the Matamataharakeke block which he had
purchased to James Darrow. The sale also included the leasehold rights gained by
Stevens over the 300 acre reserve.5 This meant that Darrow now had access through
the reserve to remove the timber milled on the block. The length of the lease was not
affected by the sale and Stevens remained liable to pay the rent. In 1889 Darrow's
interest in the block was sold to the Union Steam Saw Moulding Sash and Door
Company and then on to the Kauri Timber Company. The lease of the reserve was
also transferred.
It appears that the Kauri Timber Company wished to secure its lease over the reserve
because in 1895, eight years before the lease was due to expire, the Kauri Timber
Company signed a further lease with Ngapera and Rangipiki. This lease was to run for
a period of 14 years from January 1903 (the date the first lease would expire).6 The
rent would continue to be £ 1 0 per annum. The lease granted the timber company the
same access rights as contained in the first lease, and permitted both Ngapera and
Rangipiki to occupy the land. It also protected the cultivations and wahi tapu on the
block by prohibiting the lessee from making any routes through those sites. The lease
was translated by William Swanson and witnessed by John Peace, a solicitor.
This lease was confirmed in the Native Land Court by Judge Batham on 8 July 1899.7
The application was made under section 120 of the Native Land Act 1894. This
section allowed that when half the period of a lease had expired before 1894 the
lessee had one year to obtain a 14 year renewal of the lease. The purpose of this
section was to protect the rights of leaseholders when the 1894 Act prohibited further
private alienation of Maori land.
4 ibid 5 Transfer 5633, LINZ, Hamilton 6 Lease 1744 7 Coromandel Minute Book 8, fo1312, 8 July 1899
51
Then the court called for objections to the lease, at WhICh stage Mf Walker appeared
for Rangipiki 'as to rent due at date of extended lease pending appointment of
successor to A Karaka'. 8 A marginal note in the records indicated that over £8 was
owing. It appears that this money was Arama's share of the rent but that it had not
been paid because his successor had not been appointed by the court. Rangipiki had
been appointed successor on 23 March 1899 (see below) and objected to the lease
being confIrmed until the money owed was paid to her.
To this, Ngapera's lawyer, McCormick, replied that while Rangipiki had been
appointed successor, the court had defIned relative interests in the block (see below)
and Rangipiki was only entitled to a part of the payment because Ngapera was the
majority shareholder in the block.
The court's decision was:
The Judge thought WR [Wikitoria Rangipiki] entitled - but would give no decision it was for the person paying the money to protect himself. Mr McCormick would give an undertaking as to paying the money - Mr Walker accepted -as did also Ngapera te Akau. 9
Exactly what this means is not quite clear. It appears that the judge did not feel under
any obligation to ensure that the rent was paid to the owners in a proper manner, but
that it was up to the lessee to do so.
3.2 Relative Interests
In 1899 Ngapera Te Akau applied to have the relative interests of the owners of
Matamataharakeke defined. The Native Land Court heard the case on 16 March 1899.
Ngapera claimed that the shares of the original owners in the land were unequal and
that the shares of Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki amounted to 50 acres and her father
Paraone's shares in the block amounted to 250 acres. Ngapera said that her father:
8 ibid
permanently lived on this land. His parents lived there and his grandparents and his ancestors lived there - Paraone and all those I have mentioned had houses, cultivations and burial places on this land - I am living there and cultivating there. The Reserve was made for Paraone Te Awa and for no one else. Arama Karaka and the two
9 ibid, fol 313
52
Wikitorias have never occupIed this land nor have there [SIC] parents nor there [sic] ancestors occupied there nor in my time have the land there or occupied there. 10
Ngapera said that she had no other place of residence and was fanning cattle and pigs
on the reserve and collected a fee from gum diggers working the land. Ngapera
claimed the land through inheritance from her father and through her constant
occupation.
At this point Rangipiki objected, and her representative, Hohepa Mataitaua cross
examined Ngapera. She said that her claim was from Te Tao, but she was unable to
name Paraone's mother. She said that Paraone shared in all the 4,000 acres.
The next witness was Tuterangi from Ngati Porou who lived at Harataunga. He said
that he knew the land well because he had dug gum there. He described Paraone and
Ngapera as:
our landlords when we dug gum on this land - Paraone and Te Akau were permanent occupiers of the land. She [Ngapera] is now the descendant of these - Paraone was there in 1864 when went there first. I have lived since that nearby at Haratanga - Since Paraone's death Te Akau has been the sole occupier of the land.
I know the 3 other owners of this land. The two Wikitoria's and Ararna Karaka - none of them have lived off Matamataharakeke since I carne there in 1864 - Paraone had mana over the 4000 ac and gave leave for gum digging there. 11
The next witness was Rangipiki who objected:
to Te Akau getting 250 acres. She ought to have only 40 acres - as was arranged to be Paraone's share. The balance should belong to us three whose shares are equal- Te Akau should get 40 acres in virtue of her ahi ka. By right to the land claim is worthless - Her parents are buried at Matarnataharakeke not her tupunas - I have made a mistake, her father is bd at Koputauaki in my cemetery. Her tupunas have not lived at Matarnataharakeke - Paraone lived at Kapanga & other places about there -Tuatiki is the tupuna for this land. 12
Rangipiki repeated her whakapapa as given in the title investigation. She said that
Arama sent Paraone to live at Matamataharakeke because he 'had no other place to
10 Coromandel Minute Book 6, fols 102-103, 16 March 1899 11 ibid, fol 104 12 ibid, fol 105
53
live at' and that he and his 'forefathers' had lived at Kapanga. I3 She explamed that
Paraone had gained the entire 4,000 acres without their presence at the court hearing,
and at a fe-hearing the names of Arama, Rangipiki and Nohohau had been added to
the title. She admitted that Ngapera had continuously occupied the land, but that did
not diminish the rights of the other owners. She said that they lived there before
Paraone in 1860. Despite not having lived there between 1860 and 1871, they did visit
Matamataharakeke during this period.
Evidence from the second title investigation was read in court, including Arama's
statement that he 'consented to Paraone going to dig gum on the land when his
permission was asked by Paraone. ' 14
At this point the case closed and the court ordered that the definitions of interests be:
• Ngapera Te Akau 240 acres;
• Wikitoria Rangipiki 20 acres; and
• Arama Karaka 40 acres.
This decision needs to be examined in light of the earlier decisions of the court
awarding ownership of the block. When Judge Monro found in favour of Paraone,
Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki he said they had equally exercised rights of
ownership over the block. This presumably would have meant that each had equal
shares in the block as a whole. However, the 300 acre reserve was created at the first
title hearing when Paraone was awarded sole ownership of the block, and the judge
declared that the 300 acre portion he was occupying should be inalienable. No
mention was made of the reserve being solely for Paraone when the judge altered his
decision on appeal to include Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki in the title. This could
have meant that all four should have been equally entitled to the reserve, or that no
provision was made to protect the interests of Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki in the
block. The money paid by Stevens to purchase the block had been divided equally
into four. However, the Native Land Court's decision on the relative interests meant
13 ibid, fol 106 14 ibid, fol 107
54
that the area reserved from sale was unequally divided, and that Arama and RangIplkl
were not given the same compensation for their loss of property rights as Ngapera.
Arama Karaka had died in 1894. He had owned interests in several blocks in the area,
and the Native Land Court appointed his successors in March 1899. It was not until
23 March 1899, after the relative interests had been defined, that the Native Land
Court vested Arama's interest in Matamataharakeke in Rangipiki. The minutes say
that 'I ask that this interest be awarded to me Wikitoria Rangipiki'. There were no
objectors and the court made the order. 15 Therefore, by 1899, Rangipiki owned 60
acres and N gapera owned 240 acres.
3.3 Succession to Wikitoria Rangipiki
Wikitoria Rangipiki died 18 June 1904. She had no children but she was survived by
her two nephews, Pera Tamati and Wiremu Tamati, and a half-brother, Maihi Hura.
In May 1907 the succession to Rangipiki was heard by the court at Paeroa before
Judge HF. Edger. 16 Rangipiki had interests in many blocks, and the claims to succeed
her in all those blocks were heard at the same time. The claimants to her interests in
Matamataharakeke were:
• Rihitoto Mataia and Huihana Rangituia claiming under Tuatiki (represented by
Nicholls);
• Wiremu Tamati and Pera Tamati, also claiming under Tuatiki (represented by
Hetaraka Poihipi);
• Ngapera Te Akau claiming under Te Tao 'the ancestor to whom this land was
awarded (represented by Hohepa Kapene);
• Maihi Hura, claiming under Tuatiki (represented by Hohepa Mataitaua); and
• Hohepa Kapene and Hamiora Mangakahia, claiming from Tuatiki (represented by
Remana).17
15 Coromandel Minute Book 6, foll44, 23 March 1899 16 Hauraki Minute Book 55, fols 112-236, 31 May 1907-18 June 1907 17 ibid, fol 151
55
Maihi Hura was Rangipiki's half-brother. They shared the same father, Hura, but it
was Rangipiki's mother, Ruatere, who was descended from Tuatiki:
Ruatere Hura
Wikitoria Rangipiki I
M 'h'H 18 al 1 ura
Paea
Neither Hura or Paea were from the area. Maihi was born at Harataunga and moved to
Koputauaki when he was a child. After his marriage he moved to Wairoa for two
years, but his children where born at Koputauaki. Although he had moved around
during the Waikato wars, he claimed to have lived with Rangipiki at Koputauaki for
most of the time, apart from one year at Ohinemuri. 19 The other claimants to
Rangipiki's interests said that he had lived outside the district for many years.
Mataitaua said that it was Rangipiki' s wish that Maihi Hura be included in the land
title, despite the fact that he was not descended from Tuatiki, because Rangipiki and
Maihi had always lived together, and Maihi had supported her in many things. Maihi
said that Huihana Rangituia and Rihutoto Mataia had not lived with them, nor had
they attended either Arama's or Rangipiki's tangi. Under cross-examination from
Hetaraka he said that Pera and Wiremu Tamati had attended and helped to pay for
Rangipiki's tangi, and that Pera had planted ground for Rangipiki. He said that Pera's
daughter, Pare, had lived with himself and Rangipiki.20
Mataitaua and Maihi denied that Ngapera had any entitlement to Rangipiki's
interests:
We do not admit that Paraone was desc [descended] from Tuatiki. Tho the Court said both parties were from the one ancestor. I was present when the reI. [relative] int [interests] was defined in the 300 acres. I was agent for Wikitoria. It was thro Te Akau's action that Wikitoria got only a small interest?!
At this point in the proceedings Kapene asked Mataitaua: 'Had not Te Akau more
right than Wikitoria', to which Mataitaua responded: 'Not properly but Te Akau had
!8 ibid, fol 152 19 ibid, fol 183 20 ibid, fol 184
56
no other land, & therefore theUCourt gave her a Iarger~hare. >Z2 This explanatIOn
shows that Ngapera's ancestral claim (and that of Paraone Te Akau) was still not
recognised by Rangipiki's whanau, and that Ngapera's only rights to the land were
based on occupation.
Hohepa Kapene said that his claim was that Ngapera Te Akau should be appointed
the successor 'although she is not the next of kin. ,23 He summarised the former title
investigations and repeated Paraone's whakapapa from Te Tao, and said that while
Arama, Nohohau and Rangipiki claimed from Tuatiki, the court awarded the land to
both parties 'under the one ancestor, tho I don't know who that ancestor was
(emphasis added). ,24 Kapene's statement indicates that even he could not follow the
logic of the Native Land Court's decision that the two rival claimant groups shared an
ancestor when their whakapapa conflicted. As further proof of Paraone's right,
Kapene argued that Arama Karaka, Nohohau and Rangipiki were ordered to pay the
costs of the appeal hearing.
Under cross-examination by Hetaraka, Kapene told the court that the next of kin
under the common ancestor should succeed: 'the other owners of the land. No person
not included at the original investigation should be appointed to succeed. ,25 His basic
argument was that the four owners were awarded title to the block as the only living
descendants of the ancestor, and, as such, the sole surviving descendant (Ngapera)
should be awarded Rangipiki's interest.
The next claimants to present their case were Pera and Wiremu Tamati, Rangipiki's
nephews. Pera told the court that his mother had taught him his whakapapa, and that
this had later been confirmed by Rangipiki:26
21 ibid, fol 154 22 ibid 23 ibid 24 ibid, fol 155 25 ibid, fol 156 26 ibid, fol 161
57
Tuatiki
I Teoteo
Urehamana
I Paeke
I Rangitaiki = Te Tairinga Tahua
I Rangiwhakahamo Te Wharekiri = Kohina
I I Pototiki Rangiwheau TePoru
I I I Ruatere Te Ruahoho Hei
I I I Wikitoria Heni Rawe
Pera Wiremu
Pera's great-grandmother, Rangiwheau, had been captured by Ngapuhi and taken
north with Te Ruahoho and Heni. Her children were born at Ngapuhi.27 Pera said his
mother had told him that he had an aunt named Wikitoria Rangipiki. Heni died some
years before 1884. Pera and Wiremu went to Manaia where they found Hei, who told
Rangipiki that her nephews were at Manaia:
Wikitoria wrote asking us to corne. We went there to Koputauaki. Ararna Karaka was then still alive. We found Te Hira and his sister, & Maihi Hura there. Wikitoria wept over us. So did they all. I began then to live permanently with Wikitoria. She told us our whakapapa. The same as I have given aloud.28
He went on to say that his daughter, Pare Pera, also lived with Rangipiki before they
went to Harataunga to dig gum and that his daughter was with Rangipiki when she
died. Pera at this time was at Manaia and found out about Rangipiki's death from
Hohepa Kapene. He returned and helped to pay for the tangi which was attended by
many people.
27 ibid, fo1 162 28 ibid, fo1 161
58
Although Hohepa Kapene was appeanng to represent the mterest of Ngapera he, and
Hamiora Mangakahia, also put forward their own ancestral claim to the block, while
saying they left the 60 acre reserve to Ngapera.29 Quite why they wished to claim for
Rangipiki's interest in the 4,000 acre block, which had already been sold, is not clear.
Kapene claimed all the interests of Rangipiki through their common ancestor Te
Wharekiri. He said that Tuatiki was the ancestor, and that he was from the Raukatauri
hapu ofNgati Huarere:
Tuatiki
1
Teoteo
1
Urehamama
Paeke
1
Te Tairinga
1
Te Wharekiri = Nawa
1
Rae Te Kohina _________________ 1
1
Taiaho TeMoho
1 1
TeMana Aperahama
1 1
Riria Poau Hohepa Kapene
1
Mangakahia
= Marama
Pototiki
1
Ruatere
Wikitoria
Under cross-examination from Nicholls, Kapene said that he did not know if Rihitoto
and Huihana were descended from Tuatiki. However, Nicholls went on to show that
in other cases in the Native Land Court Kapene had presented whakapapa that
supported Rihitoto and Huihana's claim. Mataitaua also pointed out that Kapene had
appeared as a witness in support of Arama at the title investigation and yet he was
now supporting Paraone' s daughter in this case.
29 ibid, fo1 168
59
The next claimant to be heard was Hamiora Mangakahia who gave his whakapapa
from a different ancestor than Tuatiki, but demonstrated his relationship to
Rangipiki:30
Huarere
Te Kotore
1
Kautu 1
Raukatauri
1
Te Ikawhetu ___ 1 _______ _
1
Muia Te Heitawhiri = Puha 1
Nawa = Te Wharekiri Te Rakau _____ 1, ___ ------
Rae Kohina Taioranga
1 _____ --
1
TeMoho Taioho Te Taranga Marama =Pototiki Ihenga
1 1 1
Aperahama TeMana Ruatere Hinehau
1 1 1
Hohepa Kapene RiriaPoau Wikitoria Hene
1 1
Mangakahia Hori Remana
Mangakahia claimed that he had a right to Matamataharakeke, but was away when
the title was awarded to the block. He denied that Maihi Hura and Pera and Wiremu
Tamati had any relationship to Rangipiki. Under cross-examination from Hetaraka he
admitted that it was only after he found out about Maihi's claim through the panui
that he knew that Rangipiki had interests in these lands.
30 ibid, fol 172
60
The next claimant was Huihana Rangituia, who said she was from the Te Mango hapu
of Ngati Tamatera and lived at Papaaroha and Koputauaki. Huihana traced her
descent from the father of Tuatiki, Paeamanu:3!
Paeamanu
I Tuatiki
I Teoteo
Urehamama
I Paeke
I Rangitaiki Te Tairinga Te Tahua
I Te Atitupua = Rangikahemo Kohina = T e Wharekiri = Paretiraroa _____ 1 _____ _
Rangihurimoana 1
Te Iherangi
1
Kamihi
1
HeraPutea
1
Huihana
I Maramarua = Pototiki Tara Riro I I I _1_____ Ruatere = Hura = Paea Hinengako Rangatana I I I I 1 __ _ I Taui Te Hami Wikitoria Maihi I Te Meiha I I Rangipiki Hura Arama Wikitoria
1 Hariata Karaka Nohohau Arama Wikitoria I Karaka Nohohau Rihitoto
While Rangipiki was descended from Te Tairinga with Te Tahua, Rihitoto and
Huihana were descended from Te Tairinga with Rangitaiki. Arama and Nohohau
could trace their descent through both sides as their parents were Taui and
Hinengako. This meant that Huihana and Rihitoto were quite closely related to Arama
and Nohohau, but were only distantly related to Rangipiki. They were, nevertheless,
descendants of Tuatiki.
Huihana Rangituia said that these ancestors had lived in the Kamakamakura pa on the
Matamataharakeke block and were now buried there. She went on to say that he had
given this whakapapa before other courts when Rangipiki and Hohepa Kapene were
31 ibid, fot 177
61
present and they had not challenged it. She said that it was a Ngatl Huarere
whakapapa and that they were also called Ngati Raukatauri. Arama and herself were
part of the Te Mango hapu. Huihana denied that Hamiora and Kapene were Te
Mango, and said that Pera and Wiremu Tamati were Ngati Pukenga.32 She objected to
Ngapera's claim because she could not trace her ancestry from Tuatiki, and said that
it was not Rangipiki's wish that the land go to Maihi Hura.
On 3 July 1907 the Native Land Court delivered its decision on successors to
Rangipiki in the Matamataharakeke block. 33 The judge referred to the previous
hearings into the block at which the court had decided that Paraone and Arama,
Nohohau, and Rangipiki shared a common ancestor. However, the judge in this case
conceded that the whakapapa of the two sides were in conflict and implied that he did
not know why the court decided as it had:
Paraone claimed from Te Tao, and in the course of his evidence said that Te Tao was the son ofPaeke. Arama Karaka and party claimed from Tuatiki, tracing from him this Paeke, stating also that Te Tao was grandson ofPaeke. Both parties denied that they were related to each other, and Arama Karaka and party denied the whakapapa given by Paraone. Nevertheless the Court must have considered they were both from Paeke, as that is the only possible common ancestor34
Referring to Rangipiki's interest in Moehau 2B No 4, the judge said that the
whakapapa submitted by Pera and Wiremu Tamati from Tahua was 'strongly
denied' .35 However, the judge admitted that the whakapapa given by several
claimants differed, and they could not be reconciled. He therefore decided that:
Altho' there is not strong evidence in support of the whakapapa put forth on the part of Per a Tamati and his brother, it seems clear that the deceased herself treated them as being related to her, and we decide to recognise this by awarding them a small interest in one block. We have decided that this shall be the Matamataharakeke block.
36
The 60 acre share owned by Rangipiki was made up of her own 20 acres, as well as
the 20 acres each owned by Arama and Nohohau. The judge awarded Pera and
Wiremu Tamati the 20 acre share granted to Rangipiki when the relative interests in
32 ibid, fol 178 33 Hauraki Minute Book 55, fols 351-353,3 July 1907 34 ibid, fol 351 35 ibid, fol 348 36 ibid
62
the block were first defined. The remalmng 40 acres were awarded to Hohepa
Kapene, as the whakapapa submitted by him and Mangakahia placed them as
Rangipiki's nearest relations. However, as Kapene did not claim the reserve, but
wanted Ngapera to have it, the court ordered that Ngapera would succeed. 37
Therefore, although the court did make an award to Ngapera, this was not in
recognition of her ancestral rights, but rather because Kapene's rights were
recognised, and he wished the land to go to Ngapera.
This meant that the division ofRangipiki's 60 acre share was:
• Pera Tamati 10 acres;
• Wiremu Tamati 10 acres; and
• Ngapera Te Akau 40 acres.
At the end April 1908 Huihana Rangituia appealed the succession order before Judge
Seth-Smith when the court was sitting in Paeroa.38 Huihana denied the whakapapa
submitted by Kapene and Mangakahia, and evidence was produced from other cases
which showed that whakapapa to be incorrect. In return Hohepa Kapene and Hamiora
Mangakahia, representing Ngapera, argued that while Huihana's whakapapa was
correct in itself, she had not included all the lines of descent.
The Appellate Court gave its decision on 22 May 1908.39 The court acknowledged
that if Kapene' s whakapapa was correct then it would show Kapene and Mangakahia
'to be nearer of kin to the deceased than the appellants, tracing from the ancestor
under whom the land was originally awarded. ,40 The court also said that if Pera and
Wiremu Tamati's whakapapa was correct then they too would be related to Rangipiki
to the 'same degree as Hohepa Kapene and Hamiora Mangakahia tracing from the
same ancestor. ,41
31 ibid, fol 352 38 Appellate Court Auckland District Minute Book 5, fols 336-342, 343-344, 24-29 April 1908, and
President's Appellate Court Minute Book 4, fols 103, 111-117,24-29 April 1908 (Judge Seth-Smith's notes)
39 Appellate Court Auckland District Minute Book 6, fols 58-59, 66-68, 22 May 1908, and President's Appellate Court Minute Book 6, fols 174-175, 22 May 1908
40 Appellate Court Auckland District Minute Book 6, fol 67 41 ibid, fol 68
63
However, the court rejected the whakapapa given by Kapene and Mangakahia:
There are a number of inconsistencies between their evidence in this case and that given in other cases, and even in their evidence in this case itself. We shall refer to the most important one. They state that:
Te Wharekiri Nawa
I Rae Kohina42
This was inconsistent with Kapene's statement III a prevIOUS case that 'Kohina
married Wharekiri and had Pototiki. ,43 The judge said that if this were true it would
mean that Te Wharekiri married his own daughter:
And it is quite clear from the evidence of a number of her [Rangipiki's] witnesses in this and other cases, including that of Wikitoria Rangipiki herself, that Kohina did marry Te Wharekiri. The whole case of this party depends upon the alleged marriage of Nawa to Te Wharekiri and that being disproved they can have no right. We accordingly uphold the appeal so far as the 40 acres awarded by the Native Land Court to Ngapera Te Akau is concerned and we declare the appellants entitled to that interest. 44
As regards to the interests of Pera and Wiremu Tamati the Appellate Court refused to
overturn their award, on the grounds that no evidence could be produced to disprove
their whakapapa:
As to the award of 20 acres to Pera and Wiremu Tamati, their evidence as to their descent is no doubt uncorroborated, but the Native Land Court has to some extent found in their favour and we cannot say that the finding has been conclusively shown to be wrong. Adopting the usual rule in such cases, therefore we shall not interfere with the decision of the Native Land Court as far as they are concerned.45
Therefore, the court order resulted in the 40 acres that had previously been awarded
to Ngapera now being awarded to Huihana Rangituia, Rihitoto Mataia and their
whanau. The minutes kept by Judge Seth-Smith recorded that it was Rihitoto who
submitted the names to be included, as Huihana was now dead, and that there was
'some discussion as to distribution ofshares,.46
42 ibid 43 ibid 44 ibid 45 ibid 46 President's Appellate Court Minute Book 6, fol 175, 22 May 1908
64
The court ordered the following:
• Pera Tamati (10 acres);
• Wiremu Tamati (10 acres);
• Huihana Rangituia (5 acres);
• Makoare Te Ahuroha (5 acres);
• Rihitoto Mataia (10 acres);
• Arapata Tineia (10 acres);
• Tame Puketapu (5 acres); and
• Petiwai Hoani (5 acres).
3.4 Partition of Reserve
At the end of 1908 Ngapera's husband, Hare Te Raharaha, applied to the court to
have the 300 acre reserve partitioned:
I want 60 acres cut off for Wikitoria who is now dead. This represents the shares of Arama Karaka & Wikitoria Rangipiki. To be cut off along the western side of the block. I produce authority from my wife. She lives on the land. (owning 240 acres.) No one lives on the 60 acres except trees. The whole block is nearly all flat land. All of equal value.47
The Judge HF. Edger set aside two days for other owners in the block to object to the
proposed partition of the block. On 3 December the court again met and Rihitoto
Mataia, one ofRangipiki's successors said 'we are not well acquainted with the land
& would like to send a man down to look at it. And that the tapu be cut off. ,48 The
court suggested that an extra ten acres should be given to the people who are entitled
to the 60 acres. Raharaha agreed to this proposal.
Later that day Nicholls, representing Rangipiki's successors, told the court:
We have now agreed to take the 70 acres along the Western bd [boundary]. The tapu to be cut off & awarded to Ngapera Te Akau to contain about lac. And to be made absolutely inalienable. It is on the sea shore & has been fenced on one side.
49
47 Hauraki Minute Book 59, fo1160, 1 December 1908 48 ibid, fol 175 49 ibid, fol 177
65
The wahi tapu referred to was an urupa on the shore of Waikawau Bay at the northern
end of Matamataharakeke Reserve B block. The court granted one acre as wahi tapu
to Ngapera, and made it absolutely inalienable (see map six).
The court ordered that Matamataharakeke Reserve A of 70 acres be awarded to(see
map four):
• Pera Tamati 12 acres;
• Wiremu Tamati 12 acres;
• Wiremu Pita Tauna 6 acres;
• Tame Puketapu 6 acres;
• Makoare Te Ahuroa 6 acres;
• Rihitoto Mataia 11 acres;
• Arapeta Tineia 11 acres; and
• Petiwai Roani 6 acres.
Matamataharakeke Reserve B consisted of 223 acres and was awarded to Ngapera Te
Akau (see map five).
3.5 Summary
• In January 1882 Arama, Rangipiki and Ngapera signed a 21 year lease to Walter
and Francis Stevens allowing them access through the 300 acre reserve for the
purposes of the timber milling being carried out on the rest of the block. The rental
was £ 10 per annum.
• The lease granting access was transferred to Darrow, then the Union Stearn Saw
Moulding Sash and Door Company, and finally on to the Kauri Timber Company.
In 1899 the Kauri Timber Company negotiated a further 14 year term to run from
1903. The extended lease was confirmed by the Native Land Court in July 1899.
At the time there was some dispute between Rangipiki and Ngapera as to how the
rent should be distributed.
• The relative interests in the reserve were defined on 16 March 1899. Ngapera was
awarded 240 acres; Arama, 40 acres; and Rangipiki, 20 acres. The court made this
66
award on the basis that the 300 acres had been made inalIenable because It was
being occupied by Paraone. Therefore, most of the reserve went to his successor,
Ngapera, despite the fact that the court had originally found all the owners equally
entitled to the block, and the purchase money had been equally divided .
• Rangipiki died in 1904. Applications to succeed to her were heard in 1907 and
appealed in 1908. The final result was that Rangipiki's 60 acre share was divided
between her two nephews, Pera and Wiremu Tamati, and the family of Huihana
Rangituia and Rihitoto Mataia, who were cousins of Arama and Nohohau.
Ngapera's ancestral claim was not recognised by the court .
• In 1908 the reserve was partitioned. Ngapera was awarded 223 acres
(Matamataharakeke Reserve B), and a one acre wahi tapu, and the successors to
Rangipiki were awarded 70 acres (Matamataharakeke Reserve A).
67
4. Matamataharakeke Reserve B
4.1 Succession to Ngapera Te Akau
On 8 May 1912 Hare Te Raharaha, the husband of Ngapera, applied for a grant of
probate for her will. They had no children. The will was read with no objections so
the court granted the probate to Hare. 1 On the same day the minutes recorded that
Matamataharakeke B was awarded to Henare Te Raharaha. 2 Henare was the brother
of Hare, and there is no explanation as to why the succession order was made in his
name, as Ngapera had willed her interests to Hare.
It does appear that the order was supposed to be to Hare, because on Hare's death
succession orders were made to his interest in Matamataharakeke. In June 1913 the
court heard evidence from Manira Whatarau that Hare had died on 15 December
1912.3 Manira said that Hare left no will, but that he was survived by grandchildren.
The court made succession orders to those children:
• Whakama Ngahoari;
• Toenga Ngahoari;
• Ngakoti Honetana;
• Erana Honetana; and
• Rae Honetana.
As their ages ranged from 13 to 20 Manira Whatarau was appointed trustee.4 The fact
that the succession order said they were succeeding to 'Hare Te Raharaha' in
Matamataharakeke Reserve indicates that the succession order to Ngapera Te Akau
was supposed to be to 'Hare' not 'Henare'.
In 1926 Erana Honetana died and N gakoti Honetana applied to succeed to her share
of Matamataharakeke.5 It was at this stage that the court clerk discovered that a
I Coromandel Minute Book 9, fo197, 8 May 1912 2 ibid, fol 98 3 Auckland Minute Book, fo181, 20 June 1913 4 Trustee Order, 20 June 1913, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton 5 Application to succeed, 20 Akuhata 1926, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton
68
mIstake had been made. Because Erana was a successor to Hare, but Henare had been
appointed Ngapera's successor, this meant that Erana did not have any interest in
Matamataharakeke unless Hare and Henare were the same person.6 Toenga Ngahoari
was also dead by this time.
No steps were taken to resolve the matter until 1928 when Ngahoari's agent, G.H.
Woods, advised that Whakama could not 'swear to Henare Te Raharaha and Hare Te
Raharaha as being the same person,.7 They therefore proposed to apply for a
succession order from Henare instead. They also asked that the case be adjourned
from Thames to Whangarei, which was where the descendants were living.
The case was heard on 13 December 1929 in Whangarei. 8 Woods explained the
background to the case and that this was a fresh application to succeed Henare (rather
than Hare) Te Raharaha in Matamataharakeke. He referred to other Tai Tokerau cases
showing Henare and Hare were brothers. Whakama Ngahori appeared as a witness.
She said that Henare was her grandfather and not the same person as Hare Te
Rarahaha. She went on to say that Henare had died 30 or 40 years ago leaving no will
and only one child, her mother Mereana Te Peia, who was now dead leaving six
children. Out of the six children appointed successors to Hare in 1913 only three were
still alive in 1929. They were appointed successors to Henare Te Raharaha:
• Whakama Ngahoari (of Whangarei);
• Ngakoti Honetana (ofPokapu); and
• Rae Honetana (ofKawakawa).
The minutes of the court make no attempt to identify who was actually Ngapera Te
Akau's husband. The court assumed that because Henare was appointed successor in
1912 that he was the correct person. Thus the court's original mistake was never
corrected and the grandchildren of Henare Te Raharaha became the owners, even
though they had no ancestral ties to the land.
6 Registrar to Ngakoti Honetana, 9 September 1926, C 197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton
7 Woods to Registrar, 11 October 1928, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton 8 Wbangarei Minute Book 16, fols 109-11, 13 December 1929
69
Discussion
Once the mix up over the identities of Rare and Henare was resolved, the final result
was that the great-nieces and nephews of Ngapera's husband came to own
Matamataharakeke B. Neither Hare, Renare, Whakama, Ngakoti or Rae had tribal
affiliation to Matamataharakeke. They were all from Tai Tokerau, of Ngapuhi
descent. Matamataharakeke therefore passed out of Ngati Ruarere ownership .
• The fact that Ngapera made a will meant that ancestral ownership was overruled;
Ngapera's will meant that the Native Land Court did not have to appoint a
successor descended from the original ancestor. Hare Te Raharaha had no
ancestral claim to Matamataharakeke, and the Native Land Court would not have
awarded him her interest if she had died intestate. In the absence of a will it is
likely that the successors to Rangipiki would have been awarded Ngapera's
interest as they were the surviving descendants of the original ancestor. From the
claimant's perspective this would have corrected the original inclusion of Paraone
in the title to the block.
The result of Ngapera Te Akau's will was that the ancestral land of Ngati Huarere
was awarded to people who were not of the same kin group and not resident on the
land. This was against traditional concepts of Maori land ownership, and also against
the principles followed by the Native Land Court. 9 Tikanga Maori required that land
remain in tribal ownership, and the Native Land Court did not appoint spouses as
successors unless they were of the same tribal descent.
Before the Native Land Act 1909 was passed, if land was left to a husband or a wife
by a will, and the spouse died intestate, then the land would revert to the family of the
person who had made the will. 10 It would not then pass to the next of kin of the
husband or wife. This was in accordance with Maori custom as regarding ohaki, or
deathdbed statements. If an ohaki was made gifting land to someone outside the kin-
9 The following discussion is based on personal communication with Dr David V. Williams, University of Auckland Law School.
70
group, then on the death of the person gifted the land, it would revert to the kin-group
of the donor. 11
However, the Native Land Act 1909 stopped land reverting if it had been disposed of
by will. This principle was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1925 in the case of In
re Hokimate Davis, as explained by Native Land Court Judge Norman Smith:
It was held by the Supreme Court that the Maori custom according to which, in the case of an ohaki or unwritten will, the land on the death of the donee reverted to the next-of -kin ofthe donor, did not apply to land acquired by a written will, and, in the event of a Maori who had acquired Maori land under a written will dying intestate, those entitled to succeed were his personal next-of-kin. The reason for this decision was that, as written wills were unknown to the ancient Maori, there could be no Maori custom applicable to them. 12
The court, then, took the view that because a will was a Pakeha document it ended
Maori customary title.
It appears that the government did not agree with the judgment of In re Hokimate
Davis because the law was changed in 1927. Section 4 of the Native Land
Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1927 provided that:
The persons entitled on the complete or partial intestacy of a Native to succeed to his estate so far as it consists of freehold interests in any land derived by, through, or under the will of any other Native, and the shares to which they are entitled, shall be determined in accordance with Native custom as it applies to gifts of land from one Native to another, and for the purpose of determining the successors the devise of such land shall be deemed to be a gift thereof 13
This provision was continued in the Native Land Act 1931 and the Maori Affairs Act
1953.
Therefore, there was only a 18 year period during which Matamataharakeke B owned
by Ngapera Te Akau could have ended up in the ownership of her brother-in-law's
grandchildren. If Ngapera had died before 1909 or after 1927 then, when her husband
died, the Native Land Court would have had to treat Matamataharakeke B as if it had
been gifted to Hare, and then determine who would have been Ngapera's successors if
she had not made a will. It is most likely that her successors would have been the
10 Norman Smith, Maori Land Law, A.B. & A.W. Reed, Wellington, 1960, p 55 11 ibid, P 60 12 ibid, P 55. The reference for the case is In re Hokimate Davis (1925) G.L.R. 79. 13 Section 4 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1927
71
owners of Matamataharakeke A, who, as the successors to Wikitoria Rangipiki, were
the remaining descendants ofPaeke.
Under the current law Maori land cannot be left by will to a husband or wife, unless
the spouse is a member of the hapu associated with the land. Section 108 of Te Ture
Whenua Maori Act 1993 provides that Maori land can only be left by will to: children
or grandchildren; people who would be entitled to succeed by custom; blood relations
who are members of the same hapu; other owners of the land who are members of the
same hapu; or whangai. Subsection 4 provides that a spouse may only be left a life
interest in the land. This means, that by virtue of passing this section, the Crown has
recognised the principle that Maori land should not be left by will to people who are
not of the same kin group.
The result of Ngapera's will being allowed to override Maori custom was that the
owners of Matamataharakeke B had no ties to the land. It was not part of their
turangawaewae and they did not live on the land or even in the same district. It is
therefore not surprising that they willingly sold the block in 1962.
4.2 Alienation to Goudie
Lease
Andrew Goudie was a farmer from Colville who, together with his wife, farmed land
on the Moehau, Uruwhai and other blocks at Waikawau adjoining Matamataharakeke,
totalling over 2,000 acres. 14 Goudie had been farming in the area since 1937.
In October 1948 Goudie applied to the Maori Land Court to confirm a lease of
Matamataharakeke B for £ 15 per annum. 15 A valuation of the block in early 1949
found a capital value of £315, with the unimproved value being £250 and the
14 Declaration in support of application for confirmation, 7 March 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland
15 Application for Confirmation, 22 October 1948, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland
72
improvements worth £65. 16 The lease had been made by both Rae Honetana and
Whakama Ngahoari who each held a one-third share. Ngakoti Honetana, the owner of
the third share, was deceased and no succession had yet been made to her share.
Therefore Goudie's lease had only acquired a two-third share of the block.
The court was unable to confirm the lease until it was supplied with a list of the other
land owned by the lessors. This was to cause a delay of some months because
Honetana's and Ngahoari's other land-holdings were in Tai Tokerau, and there was
difficulty obtaining the information. 17
The matter was finally heard by the court on 30 March 1949, when the lease was
confirmed by Judge Beechey subject to the following conditions:
1. that the lease conform to the requirements of the Maori Land Board;
2. that the rent be paid to the Maori Land Board for distribution to the owners;
3. that Goudie would pay rent for the whole area and execute a lease for the
remaining one-third share; and
4. that the rent be increased to five percent of government valuation. 18
Goudie agreed to increase the rent to £15/15/-- per annum and undertook to obtain a
lease from the successors to Ngakoti Honetana when they had been appointed.19
An
appropriate memorandum of lease was certified by the court in October 1949, and the
registrar reiterated the point that:
Judge Beechey has agreed to complete this matter on the understanding that steps are taken to obtain the outstanding signature ofNgakoti Honetana
20
However, a lease for the final one-third share was never executed, perhaps because
Goudie's lawyers thought that it was the responsibility of the Maori Land Court. In
16 Registrar to Fitchett and Rees, 23 March 1949, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 17 Fitchett and Rees to Registrar, 15 March 1949, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 18 Registrar to Fitchett and Rees, 5 May 1949, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 19 Goudie to Maori Land Board, 7 May 1949, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 20 Registrar to Fitchett and Rees, 26 October 1949, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland
73
1955 Goudie's solicitor wrote to the registrar asking if successors had been appomted
to Ngakoti Honetana and if they had signed a lease. 21
Sale
The reason for the enquiry in 1955 was that Goudie now wished to purchase the
freehold of the block and intended to use the land for sheep grazing and wintering
cattle. 22 In 1961 Goudie obtained the following agreement to sell from representatives
of the owners:
We the owners and the representatives of owners of the land described as MatamaataHarekeke [sic) Reserve B containing 223 acres agree to sell to Andrew Joseph Goudie of Colville the said land for the sum of £2000 - (two thousand pounds).
The sum of £1 00 to be paid today Sept 23 as deposit. The Balance of £1900 to be paid into the Maori Land Court on or before Sept 23rd 1963.
Rae Honetana
Hare Kake on behalf of the Whakama Ngahoari Kake family
Hone Tana on behalf of the Ngakoti Hone Tana family.23
Rae Honetana also signed a receipt for the £100 deposit
This agreement gave Goudie two years to have the transaction approved by the Maori
Land Court and formally completed. In March 1962 Goudie applied to summon a
meeting of owners to consider selling Matamataharakeke B to him for £2,000.24 After
the succession order was made (2 April 1962) there were 19 owners of the reserve B
block All of these owners were living in Northland at the time, five lived in
Whangarei, eight lived in Moerewa and the remainder lived in Kaikohe, Waimate,
Mangonui, and Kawakawa. 25
21 Rees to Registrar, 9 October 1955, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 22 Declaration in support of application for confirmation, 7 March 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National
Archives, Auckland 23 Signed statement, 23 September 1961, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 24 Application to summon a meeting of owners, 8 March 1862, BACS A449/48d, National Archives,
Auckland 25 List of owners, 16 April 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland
74
A valuation of the block was prepared by the ValuatIOn Department m December
1961. The valuer described the block as being mainly 'steepish' hills with a small
area of flat beach front land, with poor soil. He commented:
This block situated at Waikawau bay, Colville, although a large area is only suitable to be developed with adjoining land under present condition. Farmed road access is approx. 1 mile away. The hill country is typical of the surrounding range which is steadily reverting. Approx. 25 acres is in fair grass and is grazed by an adjoining owner.
The block fronts a good beach and has future potential subdivisional value which because of its isolation is limited at the present time.
The present Government valuation has not taken this into account, and I consider £600 would be a reasonable allowance26
The value of the block was therefore as follows:
Improvements (fences and grasses)
Unimproved Value
Potential for Subdivision
Total
£150
£935
£600
£1,68527
The court heard the application on 2 April 1962, the same day that successors were
appointed to Ngakoti Honetana.28 Appearing in support of the application Vollemaere
said that the rent and rates on the block had been paid by Goudie to date. He pointed
out that the £2,000 price was £315 in excess ofthe valuation. Judge Brook agreed that
a meeting of owners could be called and stipulated that the valuation report should be
read to the owners and the subdivisional potential of the land should be pointed out,
as well as the limitations imposed by the isolated location of the block
The meeting of owners was held at Kawakawa on 8 June 1962.29
There were 16
owners present and one proxy. This represented .9176 shares out of a total of 1.000 in
the block The proposed resolution to sell to Goudie was read and explained to the
26 Rural valuation and short report, 19 January 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland 27 ibid 28 Extract from Alienations W4 Minute Book, fol 114, 2 April 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National
Archives, Auckland 29 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, 8 June 1962, BACS, A449/48d,
National Archives, Auckland
75
owners present, as well as the particulars of the special government valuation and the
valuer's report regarding the future subdivisional potential for the block. Rae
Honetana explained that he and representatives of Ngakoti Honetana and the Kake
families had been negotiating with Goudie and had accepted his offer of £2,000 for
the land. Honetana showed the agreement to the chairman, who told Honetana such
an agreement was not binding on the other owners, who were entitled to modify the
proposal. Honetana was told that no payments should be made until the sale was
confirmed by the Maori Land Court. Honetana responded that his group' did not wish
to go back' on their word and moved:
That the said land be sold to Andrew Joseph Goudie for the price of £2000 and the purchaser to pay the Maori Trustee's commission as well as any other charges or rates which may be outstanding against the block.30
The motion was carried unanimously.
The decision to sell was confirmed by the Maori Land Court on 3 July 1962.31 The
court was told that a £100 deposit had already been paid, and that Goudie was sure
that 'both families were represented and cheque properly divided. ,32 Paying any
money before the resolution was confirmed was against the provisions of section 231
of the Maori Land Act 1953, but Judge Brook said that the circumstances justified the
'unusual course' of Goudie being credited with £100. The judge therefore ordered
that Goudie pay £1,900, plus commission, to the Maori Trustee. The conditions were
that although rent was paid up till October 1962 Goudie would not receive a refund of
the rent, and that Goudie pay the full cost of surveying the partition of Reserve B so
that a legal title could be obtained. A transfer deed to this effect was then drawn up by
the Maori Trustee in August 1962.33 The history ofthe block after it was purchased by
Goudie, and its current administration, are outlined in chapter six.
30 ibid 31 Extract from Auckland-Hauraki Alienations Minute Book 2, fol 147, 3 July 1962, BACS, A449/48d,
National Archives, Auckland 32 ibid 33 Document for Execution of sale of Matamataharakeke Reserve B to Andrew Joseph Goudie, 2
August 1962, BACS, A449/48d, National Archives, Auckland
76
4.3 Summary
• N gapera Te Akau made a will which left Matamataharakeke Reserve B to her
husband Hare Te Raharaha. If Ngapera had not made a will Hare would not have
been entitled to succeed under Native Land Court rules.
• In 1912 the Native Land Court mistakenly appointed Henare Te Raharaha as
Ngapera's successor. Henare was Hare's brother, and was already dead at this
time.
• When Hare died in 1913 the grand-children of Henare were appointed as Hare's
successors. It was apparently believed at the time that Hare and Henare were the
same person.
• Under tikanga Maori, if land had been gifted by ohaki (deathbed statement) to a
person who was not of the same blood line, then when that person died the land
would revert to its traditional owners. Therefore, on Hare's death
Matamataharakeke should have been awarded to the surviving descendants of
Paeke.
• However, Native Land Legislation between 1909 and 1927 allowed that if a spouse
had inherited land by will to which he or she was not customarily entitled then
when the spouse died it would go to his or her next of kin. This meant it was
allowed to pass out of tribal or hapu ownership.
• In the late 1920s the court realised that while successors had been appointed to
Hare, Henare was the name ofNgapera's appointed successor. Therefore Henare's
grandchildren, who had been appointed Hare's successors, did not have any legal
title to the block.
• In 1929 a new succession order was made appointing the surviving grandchildren
as successors to Henare. The original mistake of appointing Henare, rather than
Hare, as successor to Ngapera was never identified or corrected.
• The result was that Matamataharakeke Reserve B passed into the ownership of
Whakama Ngahoari, Ngakoti Honetana, and Rae Honetana of Ngapuhi. They had
no ancestral ties to Matamataharakeke, and lived in Northland.
• In 1949 the Maori Land Court confirmed a lease of the block to Andrew Goudie, a
farmer, for £15/15/-- per annum. The lease was only signed by two of the owners,
77
as Ngakoti Honetana was deceased and successors had not been appointed. !twas a
condition of the court's confinnation that Goudie obtain the signature ofNgakoti's
successors. This was never done.
• In 1961 representatives of the owners agreed to sell the block to Goudie for
£2,000. A valuation at the time said the block was worth £1,685.
• A meeting of owners was held at Kawakawa, (all of the owners lived in
Northland), in June 1962 to consider the proposal to sell to Goudie. All those
present voted in favour of the sale. The sale was confinned by the Maori Land
Court on 3 July 1962.
78
5. Matamataharakeke Reserve A
5.1 Proposal to sell to Goudie
At the same time as Goudie moved to acquire Matamataharakeke B he also started
proceedings to purchase Matamataharakeke A. In November 1961 Goudie applied to
the Maori Land Court to summon a meeting of owners to consider a proposal to sell
Matamataharakeke A for £350. 1 The application was first considered by the court on
18 December 1961, when Vollemaere, acting for Goudie, told the court:
Steep, rugged nature on coast, adjoins applicant's land, not an economic unit. If survey is necessary Mr Goudie will pay for same. Only 10 acres is useable, near the sea. Mr Goudie hopes to have an application in to purchase Matamataharakeke Reserve B, at next sitting - no survey would be needed if he can buy both areas. Mr Goudie would pay all recoverable rates. 2
The court decided to adjourn the application until a special valuation of the block had
been made available. On 12 December 1961 the district valuer G.H. Webb inspected
the block. 3 Webb gave a total value for the block of £400, including £50 worth of
improvements in the form of fences and grassing. He said there was no access to the
block and only ten of the 70 acres were easy farming land, with the balance being
steep hill land. The soil, apart from the ten acres on the northern part of the block,
was described as 'a thin layer of soil on thin clay.' He described the block as:
long and narrow, with only a small area os [sic] land suitable for development under present conditions. It has no formed access. It fronts a good beach and has future subdivisional potential, which is limited at present because of access and isolation. It is not ring fenced. The present Govt. valuation has not taken potential into account and I consider a reasonable allowance to be £200.4
The court then again considered the application to summon a meeting of owners. On
7 February 1962 Judge Brook said that the valuation report, especially the subdivision
1 Application to summon a meeting of owners, 22 November 1961, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160, National Archives, Auckland
2 Extract from Alienations Minute Book, vol AH2, folio 87, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160, National Archives, Auckland
3 Rural Valuation and Short Report, 19 January 1962, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160, National Archives, Auckland
4 ibid
79
potential, meant that Goudie's £350 application was too low.) The judge agam
adjourned the application until the following conditions were met:
1. that the price offered be amended to more than £650;
2. that succession orders should be made for one deceased owner who owned 11 out
of 70 shares; and
3. that the application should be considered together with the Matamataharakeke B
application so that the subdivision potential of the blocks together could be taken
into account.
The necessary succession order was made in early April. The court then agreed to
summon a meeting of owners after being advised by Vollemaere that Goudie was
willing to pay £700 for the block.6 Judge Brook also specified that Goudie should pay
all rates due on the block, and that the valuation report should be read to the owners.
The meeting was held in Thames on 8 June 1962.7 It was attended by 16 owners, and
12 others were represented by proxy. This represented a total share holding of 21.61
out of 70 shares. Goudie told those present that he was farming land on both sides of
the block, and his main reason for purchasing Reserve A was because it would be
very costly to fence around the two mile perimeter of the long block. The owners
rejected Goudie's offer:
Vote Shares People
For 8.0572 5
Against 13.5587 23 (including 12 proxies)
However, the recording officer made the following comment which suggested that
another application could succeed:
Some of the owners present willing to sell indicated that other owners were willing to sell but had not signed proxy forms. The successors of some deceased owners also
5 Extract from Alienations Minute Book AH2 folio 108, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160, National Archives, Auckland
6 Extract from Alienations W4 Minute Book folio 114, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160, National Archives, Auckland
7 Report of recording officer at meeting of assembled owners, 11 June 1962, BACS, A449/80d, 1711160, National Archives, Auckland
80
indicated that they would sell. 8
One year later Goudie tried again. In June 1963 he applied to the Maori Land Court to
summon another meeting of owners to consider selling him the block for £700. 9 At
this time there were over 70 owners in the block, most of whom lived in the
Coromandel - Hauraki district. lO Goudie's application was heard on 8 July 1963, at
which time the judge agreed that a meeting could be called, and said that the
application should be amended to make him liable for all recoverable rates. II
However, the next day the court heard an application to partition Matamataharakeke
Reserve A by one of the owners, Muriaroha Andrews. 12 Andrews, however, was
unable to meet the court requirements of supplying a sketch plan with the
comparative values of the land as well as the council's consent. It was noted in court
that twelve months earlier she had voted against the proposal to sell the land to
Goudie. All of her brothers and sisters had agreed to gift Andrews their share in the
block, which would give her a total of 12 out of the 70 shares. This meant that
Andrews would also have to supply their signatures to the court. The partition
application was adjourned until Andrews had gathered the required documentation,
and the court also deferred the meeting of owners to sell the land to Goudie until after
the next sitting. Andrews also agreed to confer with Goudie's solicitor.
Both applications were again heard at the next sitting of the court on 25 September
1963. However, by this time an application had been lodged under section 452 of the
Maori Mfairs Act 1953 asking the chief judge to amend succession orders that had
been made to Pera Tamati (this application is dealt with separately below). The
outcome of this application would effect the amount of shares in the block held by
Andrews and her whanau, so the court ordered that any decision on the proposed
8 ibid 9 Application to summon a meeting of owners, 14 June 1963, BACS, A449/S0d, 17/1160, National
Archives, Auckland 10 Matamataharakeke list of owners, with their addresses, S July 1963, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160,
National Archives, Auckland 11 Extract of minutes from Alienations Minute Book vol 2, fol 205, BACS, A449/80d, 17/1160,
National Archives, Auckland 12 Hauraki Minute Book 78, fol 178, 9 July 1963
81
meeting of owners and the proposed partition would have to wait until the succession
question had been determined.
The court did hear evidence on Goudie's application for a meeting of owners.13
Vollemaere, representing Goudie, said that he had held a discussion with Clarke,
representing Andrews, and the result was an amended draft resolution to be put to the
owners. Clarke said that Andrews accepted that the original application for partition
was impracticable. The draft resolution was read to the court but not recorded in the
minutes. Clarke requested that if the amended resolution was not approved by the
court an order be made that Andrews be able to purchase the block from the Maori
Trustee and then negotiate with Goudie. The court approved the compromise in
principle, but said that any decision would have to wait for the outcome of the section
452 application.
At the same time Andrews' application for the shares of her brothers and sisters to be
vested in her, and for the block to be partitioned, was heard. 14 Andrews told the court
she was one of ten children of Atarata Tamati. She said all the children were of full
age and had succeeded equally in their mother's interest in the land. Andrews
informed the court that:
I desire to erect a cottage on land which has sea frontage & I opposed resolution to sell to Goudie; all brothers & sisters agree to cottage & have signed agts [agreements] to give me their shares (filed) - all have full knowledge of English language & I ask for vlo [vesting orders] accordingly.15
As with Goudie's application, Andrews' application was adjourned until a decision on
the section 452 application had been made.
13 Extract from Alienations Minute Book AH2, fol 225, 25 September 1963, BACS, A449/80d, 1711160, National Archives, Auckland
14 Hauraki Minute Book 78, fol 212, 25 September 1963 15 ibid
82
5.2 Changing Successors (Section 452)
The application under section 452 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 was made by
another owner of Matamataharakeke A, Maremare Whitiwhiti. 16 This application
asked the chief judge to cancel succession orders to Pera Tamati that had been made
on 19 September 1954. Pera Tamati had owned a total of 12 shares out of 70 in the
block, and the 1954 decision had awarded all those shares to Muriaroha Andrews and
her nine brothers and sisters (1.2 shares each). 17
The mistake which caused the 1954 decision to be challenged seems to have arisen
over Pera's wife and one of his children both being called Atareta. Andrews and her
siblings (the FraserlPereiha whanau) were the children of Atareta Tamati, the
daughter ofPera Tamati. However, Pera had had a total of seven children:
Atareta Pera Tamati Rena
I-I
Areta Pare Atareta Hiro Whitiwhiti Tiri Ripia
I I I I I Maremare Issue Fraser Issue no Issue Issue no Issue Whitiwhiti Whanau
In June 1964 Chief Judge G.J. Jeune agreed that a mistake had been made and
ordered that the succession order made in 1954 should be cancelled. 18 The rightful
successors to Pera should have been all his seven children. They were now all dead
and the chief judge had to also decide how their interests should be divided amongst
their children.
Maremare Whitiwhiti was the only successor to Areta. However, Pare, Atareta, Hiro
and Tiri all had many children. Under section 136 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 the
court could not vest any interest in a successor if the value of the share would be less
than £10. This was intended to halt the fragmentation of Maori land and avoid
16 Application under Section 452 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, no date, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton
17 Hauraki Minute Book 74, fo1288, 29 September 1954 18 ChiefJudge Minute Book 2, fols 99-100, 16 June 1964
83
'uneconomic' land holdings. On the basis of the block being sold for £700 Pera
Tamati's 12 shares were worth a total of £120. However, the chief judge was
unwilling to see Pera's share divided between the forty-three grandchildren because it
would have been divided into uneconomic interests:
If the sale does take place the £120 will have to be broken up and entered on the cards of forty-three beneficiaries. The greatest amount will be £24, the next is £4.16.0 (5), then £4. (4), £2.8.0 (20) down to 16/- (5) and 10/- (8). If there is no sale these fortythree owners will take the place of the one deceased. 19
Therefore, the chief judge decided to make an order determining that the successors
to Pera Tamati were Pare, Atareta, Hiro, Tiri (being the four of his children who left
many grandchildren), along with Maremare Whitiwhiti (being the sole successor to
Areta):
The chief judge refused to make an order vesting Pera Tamati's interests in these
successors, in order to avoid any fragmentation of title. Instead, he directed that if the
block was sold the district Maori Land Court judge would be able to make an order to
all those entitled to the small payments under section 32, which allowed for the
distribution of funds held in trust.
Judge Brook, being the district judge, identified two problems with the chief judge's
order. While he agreed with the chief judge's decision to avoid fragmentation of the
block, the order made by the court had undesirable effects on the sale and partition
applications for two reasons:20
1. Because Pera Tamati's 12 shares were now not vested in anyone, his successors
were denied the opportunity of voting on the proposal to sell to Goudie. This was
clearly undesirable because it was known that a least two-fifths of those shares
(being Maremare Whitiwhiti and the Fraser whanau) were opposed to the sale.
2. Cancelling the previous vesting order meant that it was now not possible for Muri
Andrews to be gifted the shares of her brothers and sisters under the section 231
application. This would also affect her partition application.
19 ibid 20 Judge Brook, Further Report to the ChiefJudge, 15 July 1964, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land
Court, Hamilton
84
As a solution Brook suggested that a vesting order should be made, and that Muri
Andrews should be substituted for Atareta Fraser. This would allow both Maremare
and Muri to vote at a meeting of owners, and would give effect to the wishes of
Atareta's children that their shares be vested in Andrews. The chief judge approved
Brook's solution, and so an order was made on 23 July 1964 vesting the interests of
Pera Tamati in Hiro, Tiri, Pare, Muriaroha Andrews and Maremare Whitiwhiti. 21
5.3 Sale by Maori Trustee
Now that a decision had been made on who were the rightful owners in the block the
matters of the proposed sale and/or partition of the block could proceed.
The effect of the changed succession orders was that Muriaroha Andrews' share had
been reduced from 12 out of 70 (including those gifted by her family) to 2.4 shares.
This meant that she now had insufficient shares to obtain a partition for herself.
Instead, she applied to the court for an order under section 175 of the Maori Affairs
Act 1953 to vest the block in the Maori Trustee for sale. Section 175 provided that
when an application for partition was made, and the court was of the opinion that an
equitable partition of the block was impractical, then the block could be vested in the
Maori Trustee for sale. The Maori Trustee was to offer the land for sale to owners of
the block first. In this way Andrews hoped to purchase the entire block.
The application was heard on 30 September 1964 by Judge Brook.22 The court was
told that, although Andrews wished to purchase the block, an arrangement had been
made whereby Goudie would purchase the land from her, and she would retain a
small section for herself:
If Court so agrees and assuming Mrs Andrews were successful tenderer amongst the owners, one must say in fairness to other owners that price must be £700 even if Government Valuation less than that figure. Mr Goudie's application is to consider a sale at £700 and she should go to that figure in fairness to other owners. She would
21 Hauraki Minute Book 78, fol 348, 23 July 1964 22 Extract of Minutes from Hauraki Minute Book 78, fols 363-365, 30 September 1964, BBHW
4958/1359g 121238, National Archives, Auckland
85
enter into Mr Goudie to sell to Mr Goudie except for an area commencing at northern corner of block, extending 5 chains along sea frontage, back to road by a line parallel with western boundary of block, area to be determined preferably by Government Valuation, or failing that by private valuer. Mr Goudie will pay purchase price that Mrs Andrews has to pay less the pro rata value of area not sold and as part of arrangement Mr Goudie will be given a lease of the whole of the excluded area for 10 years on payment of rates only but subject to his meeting survey costs involved and also when called upon to surrender 114 acre in north-western corner for a house site?3
The court said that it was satisfied from the history of the block, and because there
were over 70 owners (none of whom owned more than 3.6 shares), that 'any partition
of the land on an equitable basis would be impracticable'. Therefore, it was ordered
that the block be sold by the Maori Trustee as appointed agent of the owners?4 The
judge also directed that the trustee 'bears in mind the strenuous efforts made by and
the interest consistently shown by Mrs Muriaroha Andrews. ,25
No convincing reason is given as to why the block had to be sold at all. Legally, the
sale was because it could not be partitioned into economic units. This was based on
the assumption that Maori land was only of value if it could be individualised and that
there was no merit in tribal/hapu ownership. No meeting of owners was held to see if
the owners wanted the land sold to Goudie or Andrews. A meeting of owners may
have rejected sale, as it had in the past. This was, in effect, a compulsory alienation
that did not allow for the possibility that the owners may have wished to keep the
block, even if they individually owned only small shares. There was no recognition of
the desirability of tribal ownership.
In April 1965 the Maori Trustee advertised the Matamataharakeke Reserve A open
for sale to owners of the block for the price of £715. Andrews was also personally
notified and instructed to apply by the end of May if she wished to buy the block. 26
Andrews returned her application, along with a £71 deposit on 29 April 1965. Her
23 ibid 24 ibid 25 ibid 26 Maori Trustee to M. Andrews, 21 April 1965, BBHW 4958/1359g 12/238, National Archives,
Auckland
86
solicitors advised the Maori Trustee that, if other owners bid for the block, Andrews
should be given priority because of her past efforts to obtain the block.27
Andrews was the only owner to submit an application to buy the block and her offer
was accepted by the Maori Trustee in June 1965.28 Before the sale of the block could
be completed there was some delay because, despite earlier agreements with Goudie,
the boundaries of A had not been surveyed. The cost of the survey was deducted from
the money to be distributed to the owners.29 The purchase was completed on 16
February 1966.30 The money was distributed to the owners in September 1966.31
Despite the stated agreement made that Andrews would sell the block to Goudie, and
retain a section for herself, the entire 70 acre reserve remains in the ownership of
Muri Andrew's family. The departmental records do not explain why the sale to
Goudie did not go ahead, or if any other arrangements were made with Goudie.
Muriaroha Andrews is now deceased, and in February 1980 the block was vested in
her successors: A.H. Andrews, Rex Ti Hini Andrews and Edith Marguerite
Andrews.32 The current administration of the block is examined in chapter six.
Although Matamataharakeke still has the status of Maori Freehold Land the effect of
the section 175 sale has been that it is now the property of the descendants of
Muriaroha Andrews only, and the wider Ngati Huarere whanau, for whom it is their
ancestral land, will not share in its legal ownership. Although still Maori land
Matamataharakeke A is no longer Ngati Huarere land, just as if it had been sold to
Goudie.
27 Clarke to Maori Trustee, 29 April 1965, BBHW 495811359g 12/238, National Archives, Auckland 28 Maori Trustee to Clarke, 22 June 1965, BBHW 4958/1359g 12/238, National Archives, Auckland 29 ibid 30 Memorandum of Transfer, 16 February 1966, C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton 31 Maori Trustee to Mamae Dixon, BBHW 4958/1359g 12/238, National Archives, Auckland 32 Memorial Schedule, C 197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton
87
5.4 Summary
• In June 1962 a meeting of owners was held to consider a proposal to sell the block
to Goudie for £700. The owners voted against his offer.
• In 1963 Goudie applied to the court to summon another meeting of owners to
consider selling him the block for £700.
• At the same time one owner, Muriaroha Andrews, applied to partition
Matamataharakeke Reserve A. Andrews, however was unable to supply the
necessary information and both her partition application and Goudie's application
were adjourned.
• An application was made in 1964 by another owner of Matamataharakeke A,
Maremare Whitiwhiti, asking the chief judge to cancel the succession orders
resulting from a 1954 decision that had awarded all the shares of Pera Tamati to
Muriaroha Andrews and her nine brothers and sisters.
• The chief judge agreed that a mistake had been made and ordered that the
succession order made in 1954 should be cancelled. A new vesting order was
made, that dramatically reduced Andrews' shareholding in the block.
• The court was told in 1964 that although Andrews wished to purchase the block,
an arrangement had been made whereby Goudie would purchase the land from her
and she would retain a small section for herself.
• Under section 175 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 the court could vest land in the
Maori Trustee for sale if the size of individual shareholdings in the block meant
that an equitable partition was impractical. Andrews therefore abandoned her
partition application and the court ordered that the block be sold by the Maori
Trustee as appointed agent of the owner.
• No meeting of owners was held to see if they agreed to the land being sold. This
was, in effect, a compulsory alienation that did not allow for the possibility that the
owners may have wished to keep the block, even if they individually owned only
small shares. There was no recognition of the desirability of tribal ownership.
• In 1965 the Maori Trustee advertised the Matamataharakeke Reserve A was open
for sale to owners of the block for the price of £715. Andrews' was the only offer
and the sale was completed in February 1966.
88
• Despite the previous agreements the block was not then sold to Goudie, but
retained by Andrews.
• By 1980 Andrews had died and the block was vested in her successors, her
immediate family.
• Although Matamataharakeke A remains as Maori Freehold Land it is now the
property of the Andrews whanau only, and has been alienated from the Ngati
Huarere descendants of the other owners.
89
6. Current Administration
Today the original Matamataharakeke block is divided into many lots that are put to
different uses (see map seven). There are sections for holiday housing on the coast,
small and large rural lots, a state forest block, and a recreation reserve.
6.1 Block History
This section outlines the history of the majority of the Matamataharakeke which was
brought by Stevens in 1881.
Despite failing to purchase Matamataharakeke, James Darrow did not miss out on
milling the timber on the block. While Darrow was a local contractor, Stevens lived
in Auckland, and was possibly a land speculator, with little interest in working the
block himself. On 13 March 1884 Stevens sold the timber on the land to Darrow for
£750. 1 This is compared with the £921 Stevens paid to purchase the land itself, and
indicates either that the Maori owners could have got more money for the block, or
that the value of the block to Pakeha rested mainly in its timber resource.
The deed gave Darrow the right to cut down, remove, carry away and dispose of kauri
timber trees on the land for a 21 year period. It also allowed Darrow to construct
roads, mills, and bridges, cut down other trees, and graze cattle or horses used for the
timber extraction. The transfer specifically reserved to Stevens the right to mine and
excavate the block.
In 1884 Walter Stevens sold a two-thirds undivided share of Matamataharakeke to
Francis Borrell Stevens, who also lived in Auckland. 2 In 1887 Francis Stevens
mortgaged his share to William Adams. 3 Francis must have been unable to meet his
1 Transfer 5633, LINZ, Hamilton 2 Certificates of Title 341167 and 341168, LINZ, Hamilton 3 Mortgage 7436, LINZ, Hamilton
90
mortgage because in early 1889 William Adams exercised his power of sale under the
mortgage and sold Francis's share to the Kauri Timber Company.4
Not long afterwards the Kauri Timber Company acquired the timber rights to the
block In June 1889 Darrow sold those rights to the Union Steam Saw Moulding Sash
and Door Company limited. 5 Then in August 1889 those rights were taken over by the
Kauri Timber Company. 6
Walter Stevens continued to own his one-third undivided share until a mortgagee sale
in 1895.7 Stevens' creditors sold his share to the Kauri Timber Company which now
owned the whole block and the timber rights.
In 1911 ownership changed again when the Kauri Timber Company sold the land to
George Wright of Auckland and Wright sold the land to Samuel Peddle who was a
Whangapoua farmer. 8 Peddle died in August 1913 and probate was granted to
Frederick Peddle. In 1917 the block was sold to William Willis a sheep farmer from
Tokomaru Bay.9
Willis divided up the block and sold the south-eastern portion containing 900 acres to
HP. Saunders in 1921. 10 In 1963 this area (now lots 2 and 4 DPS 7743) was acquired
by the Crown. It was then proclaimed to be permanent state forest land under the
Forests Act 1949 on 18 October 1963 (see map eight).ll In 1977 the Coromandel
State Forest Park was established and the Matamataharakeke land was proclaimed,
along with other blocks, to form part of that park, under section 19 of the Forests
Amendment Act 1976. 12
4 Transfer 11111, LINZ, Hamilton 5 Transfer 11250, LINZ, Hamilton 6 Transfer 11350, LINZ, Hamilton 7 Transfer 16880, LINZ, Hamilton 8 Transfers 61213 and 61214, LINZ, Hamilton 9 Certificate of Title 182/92 10 Transfer 144249, LINZ, Hamilton 11 New Zealand Gazette, 1963, p 1878 12 New Zealand Gazette, 1977, p 2186
91
The rest of the Matamataharakeke block was further divided by Willis III 1949 when
the western 1,080 acre section was sold to Andrew Goudie, a farmer from Colville
(see map eight),13 Since 1950 the remaining eastern section, including the coastline
from Little Bay around to Tokaro Bay, has been divided into many sections, creating
smaller rural lots, and holiday housing sections at Little Bay. The Coromandel County
Council today owns an esplanade reserve and recreation reserve within this area.
6.2 Recreation Reserve
In 1976 the Matamataharakeke Reserve B block, and the 400 hectare area to the south
and west of it, were sold by Andrew and Mavis Goudie to the Crown for use as a
scenic reserve. 14 On 22 October 1976 the area was proclaimed by the Lands and
Survey Department to be a Recreation Reserve under the Reserves and Domains Act
1953. 15 This area is now known as the Waikawau Bay Recreation Reserve (see map
eight).
This left the Matamataharakeke Reserve A, owned by the Andrews whanau,
surrounded by the recreation reserve. On 2 March 1980 the Andrews leased the
reserve to Crown Lands for 20 years from 1 January 1980 with the rental for the first
five years to be $925 per annum. 16 As such, Matamataharakeke A became part of the
recreation reserve.
In 1988 this land came under the administration of the Department of Conservation.
In 1997 the department produced a management plan to determine the future
direction of the land for both farming and recreational purposes. Although 'a number
of practical ideas and options "floated" around' the current approach to the
administration of the area was described as being 'somewhat ad hoc.' This chapter is
largely drawn from the contents of that plan. 17
13 Certificate of Title 944/258, LINZ, Hamilton 14 Transfer H 090328.5, LINZ, Hamilton 15 New Zealand Gazette, 1976, p 2548 16 Matamataharakeke Reserve A Memorial Schedule, Maori Land Court Hamilton 17 Correspondence between Julie Beaufill, Community Relations Officer, for Waikato Conservator,
Department of Conservation and Bassett Kay Research, 8 June 1998
92
The coastal land is described as being a shallow sandy estuary with a long beach and
sand dunes leading to coastal forest and wetlands and some pasture land. There are a
number of man-made structures on the land, including a camping ground and
facilities, parking area, three houses, water supply, farm buildings, air strip, and a
large rubbish dump.
Because the land was used for both farming and recreational purposes it was seen as
being necessary to 'integrate current farm management with protection, recreational,
historic and existing production forestry opportunities.' 18 The aim, therefore, was to
find a balance between commercial imperatives and the ecological and cultural
significance of the area.
The plan concentrated largely on the Waikawau Beach and sand dune area that were
adjacent to the camping ground, stating that
Both of these areas of interest have been reasonably well catered for. Recent management action has also provided for protection of the more significant areas of indigenous forest located within the boundaries of the farm unit. Riparian protection of the Matamataharakeke Stream has also been completed in conjunction with campground management. 19
It was proposed that the focus of future planning should be on protecting the natural
assets of soil and water. This was to be achieved largely through the 'retirement of
steep, low production hill country areas and the retirement and protection of riparian
margins along all farm waterways. ,20
The area has a variety of fauna including kiwi, kaka and a regenerated flora of kauri,
korokia and pingao. At present these are under threat from grazing stock, goats,
rabbits, possums, cats, dogs as well as an infestation of weeds.
18 ibid 19 ibid 20 ibid
93
The recreational uses of the land by the public include walking, camping, boating,
swimming and fishing. These activities place pressure on the sand dunes, waterways
and foreshore which are evident in rubbish and sewerage disposal problems.
It was proposed that these issues would be addressed by using 'appropriate' areas for
each specific activity such as farming or recreation; and to 'assist regeneration' of
native vegetation by providing shelter. The proposal is generally one of maintenance
of existing facilities, development of others, stock and weed control, education of the
public and monitoring of the area.
The practical implementation of methods to address these problems included:
• fencing of streams;
• clearly define fences on north side of Maori lease block and carry out weed control
In area;
• retire certain paddock areas;
• consider wetland development;
• control and log and plant exotic forest areas;
• better management of sand dune area; and
• an overall strategy that clearly identified the amount of land available for farming
purposes so that this does not encroach on 'areas with conservation values.,21
In conclusion it was noted that at the time the report was presented a community
meeting had yet to be held to establish 'an insight to the community/public's
perspective, on the future direction of management. ,22
The plan mentioned the existence of '46 Maori sites (including two pa and a
graveyard)' and identified the importance of protecting 'historic resources'.23 The
Matamataharakeke wahi tapu urupa block remains in Maori ownership, and is ring
fenced to separate it from the recreation reserve.
21 ibid 22 ibid 23 ibid
94
6.3 Summary
• Today the total Matamataharakeke block is divided into many lots, that are put to a
number of uses including sections for holiday housing, rural lots, a state forest
block, and a recreation reserve.
• In March 1884 Walter Stevens sold the timber on the land to Darrow for £750.
• In 1884 Stevens sold a two-thirds undivided share of Matamataharakeke to Francis
Stevens. After a mortagagee sale Francis' share was purchased by the Kauri
Timber Company.
• In June 1889 Darrow sold the timber rights to the Union Steam Saw Moulding
Sash and Door Company limited and in August 1889 those rights were transferred
to the Kauri Timber Company.
• Walter Stevens continued to own his one-third undivided share until a mortgagee
sale in 1895 and Steven's creditors sold his share to the Kauri Timber Company
which now owned the whole block and the timber rights.
• The Kauri Timber Company sold the land in 1911. From then on the block went
through a number of private owners and became gradually divided.
• In 1949 the western 1,080 acre section was sold to Andrew Goudie.
• A 328 hectare area was acquired by the Crown in 1963 which became part of the
Coromandel State Forest Park in 1977.
• In 1976 the Matamataharakeke Reserve B block, and a 400 hectare area to the
south and west of it, were sold to the Crown for a recreation reserve now known as
the Waikawau Bay Recreation Reserve.
• Matamataharakeke Reserve A was leased to the Crown in 1980 and became part of
the recreation reserve.
• In 1988 this land came under the administration of the Department of
Conservation, and in 1997 the department produced a management plan to
determine the future direction for the land for both farming and recreational
purposes.
95
• The recreation reserve includes a camping ground and facilities, parking area,
three houses, water supply, farm buildings, air strip, and a large rubbish dump. Part
of the reserve is also used for farming.
• The one acre wahi tapu reserve is fenced around its perimeter to separate it from
the recreation reserve.
96
List of Maps
1. Moehau District (adapted from Alexander, p 2)
2. Matamataharakeke showing reserve and area sold to Stevens (from Certificate of
Title 74/109, LINZ, Hamilton)
3. Timber Leases (from Transfer 4229, LINZ, Hamilton)
4. Matamataharakeke Reserve A Block (from C197 Block Order File, Maori Land
Court, Hamilton)
5. Matamataharakeke Reserve B Block (from C197 Block Order File, Maori Land
Court, Hamilton)
6. Matamataharakeke Block Tapu (from C197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court,
Hamilton)
7. Matamataharakeke Today (from LINZ Digital Database)
8. Status of Matamataharakeke (adapted from Map 7)
97
o
MAP I MOEHAU DISTRICT
:; -. , Q Great 'g UMercury ..,
Island J:
:i
20km
12miles
Map Two: M~tamataharakeke
I iU
<'-9
ta ... 37zs. 0... O. ..
99
Map Three:
A E:.
100
•
, . ...
'-.;
-
. "
1 I
Map Four:
~ ,,~
~ ~ ~ ~ • ~
~ ~ . ~ 1)
~ -- .: ,/"\,
] e ~ ~ " '
~ ~
~ en VI ~ o;..;j ~
~ ~
C'\J ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~
:& "-~ , '1 n "
~ I "i.;
,. ~ ~ ~
) ' .. ,
101
Map Five: Matamataharakeke Reserve B Block
!------~.
Qj ...
-~
~ ~
6J Q?
Waikawau B~
Pt. Matamataharakeke
Blk. Tapu.
OJ Matamataharakeke * 8 ~ t Reserve' B I Block f1 ~ ~
! ~
$
Pt. Matarnatamrakeke Blk.
IV
------Wai kawau - K.ennedy
Bay Road ovar 2(J·& '"
VI
, I
Matamataharakeke Reserve B Block 102
Map Six: Matamataharakeke Block Tapu
~~ ~ .. , .• ""~ ~:;:
Waikawau Bay IV
VI
:ot::.. ..•
NBtamataharakeke Reserve B BI k.
pt. tv1atamataharakeke Block Tapu Total Area : 4046 m 2
1~ Or- 00· Op)
ot 10 511142 9.8671
\
\
I'TS-.: 1 !I'" VI "J.~J,/t,u;:;.4S0
5017210
Map Seven:
,., 0"'_" "~
Ie
/ ~amataharakeke Today Karaka Bay "" :::~~,::[
\
Pt~qt2 R k opsJotOnepoto OC 204.6400 ~ Motuturoa
TaHia ru Bay{-otutupapaka
-
Sec 2 Blk VI HARATAUNGA SO
297.8663 SO 17269
~I
--
Sec 3 Blk VI HARATAUNGA SO
141,·:t714 SO 17461
Recreation Reserve Gaz 1976 p 2548
Lot 1 OPS 11739 530.7452
Coromandel State Forest Park State Forest Park Gaz 1977 p 2186
State Forest
" "jd;::" !:; ... I!1ipl~1
,..., &1. Ul. I ... ,V.TAUHa.t.S1)
Section 4 State rarest Amendment Act 1973
._-==-_1 ________ _
Lot 4 OPS 7773 264.3356 SO 48193
Coromandel State Forest Park State Forest Park Gaz 1977 p 2186
State Forest Gaz 1963 p 1878
P1 MOEt"I"""_~ 201.9382 ML 4745
SO 48193 Coromandel State Forest Park
State Forest Park Gaz 1977 p 2186
State Forest Gaz 1920 p 923 MOEHIlU21!AC21!.l
nOOlO JoIll1!71 SOU'U
c .. n>m~~~:'Fs..~.~t;:~!OI Pari<
!;iUl'T7~iUi SDr.FoniOl
OUI"~pl1n
Lot 1 OPS 65601 220.7000
Tokaro
Cape Colville
, ",';.,
l"qi"i~ Matamataharakeke A
Matamataharakj~~ B
Goudie's land , , ,
o
o
m::::::::::::::m Matamataharakeke
~--- .......... -.. : : ' ................. _ .... I
Recreation reserve
Private land
MAP 8 STATUS OF MATAMATAHARAKEKE
3km I
i
2miles
Bibliography
Primary Sources
BACS, A449/48d, 171748, Matamataharakeke Reserve 1B, National Archives, Auckland
BACS, A449/80d, 1711160, Matamataharakeke Reserve A, National Archives, Auckland
BBHW, 4958/1359g, 12/238, Matamataharakeke Reserve A, National Archives, Auckland
MLC-A, 9/4, Trust Commissioner certificates granted, National Archives, Auckland
MLC-A, 9/3, Trust Commissioner outwards letters, National Archives, Auckland
C 197 Block Order File, Maori Land Court, Hamilton
Hauraki, Coromandel, Auckland, and Whangarei Maori Land Court Minute Books
Certificates of Title and deposited documents from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), Hamilton
Official Publications
Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)
New Zealand Gazette
New Zealand Statutes
Reports
Alexander, David, 'The Hauraki Tribal Lands Volume 8 Part 1: Moehau District Coromandel & Manaia District Whangapoua & Kuaotonu District Waikawau District', Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Paeroa, 1997 (Wai 686, A10)
Anderson, Robyn, 'The Crown, the Treaty, and the Hauraki Tribes, 1800-1885', Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Paeroa, 1997 (Wai 686, A8)
Hohepa, Pat and David V. Williams, 'The Taking into Account of Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession', Law Commission, Wellington, Reprinted February 1996
106
Stone, Russell, 'I'he EconomIc lIripovenshIDent of Haurakl Maon through Colonisation, 1830-1930', Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Paeroa, 1997 (Wai 686, A12)
Other References
Bassett, Heather, Rachel Steel, David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Volume One, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wellington, 1994
Ell, Gordon, King Kauri: Tales & Traditions of the Kauri Country, The Bush Press, Auckland, 1996
Mackay, Duncan, Working the Kauri: A Social and Photographic History of New Zealand's Pioneer Kauri Bushmen, Random Century, Auckland, 1991
Reed, AH., The Story of the Kauri, AH. Reed & AW. Reed, Wellington, second edition, 1954
Smith, Norman, Maori Land Law, AH. & AW. Reed, Wellington,
Stone, Russell, Makers of Fortune: A Colonial Business Community and Its Fall, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1973
Williams, David V, Te Kooti tango whenua, A Report on the role of the Native Land Court as it operated from 1864 to 1909, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, prepublication draft
A People's History: Illustrated Biographies from The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One, 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books and Department of Internal Mfairs, Wellington, 1992
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One: 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1990
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume Two: 1870-1900, Bridget Williams Books, Department of Internal Mfairs, Wellington, 1993
The People of Many Peaks: 1769-1869: The Maori Biographies from The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One, Bridget Williams Books and Department of Internal Mfairs, Wellington, 1990
The Turbulent Years: 1870-1900: The Maori Biographies from The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume Two, Bridget Williams Books and the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Department of Internal Mfairs, Wellington, 1994
107
Recommended
