THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 189

Native Secretary's Office,
Wellington, 17th April, 1867.

THE following Judgment by the Compensation
Court in the case of Papakura Block, is pub-
lished for general information.

J. C. RICHMOND.

YESTERDAY the Court sat at the usual hour, and the
evidence of Mr. Rogan was taken in reference to
Ihaka's case, after which they adjourned to consider
their decision. Upon re-assembling the Chief Judge
gave the following judgment :--

This grant was made on the 25th day of February,
1863, and assured to Ihaka Takaanini Te Tihi, his
heirs and assigns, an estate near Papakura, containing
1120 acres. The grantee died in the month of
February, 1864, seized of these lands, without having
made a valid disposal thereof by will or otherwise,
leaving three children born in wedlock surviving him,
named Erina, Te Wirihana, and Ihaka, one girl and
two boys. The widow, on behalf of herself and these
children, asks for an order of the Court declaring
them entitled to succeed to the above estate, and the
right to do so is contested by Heta Te Tihi, a cousin
of the deceased, and other members of the tribe. The
section of "The Native Lands Act, 1865," under
which the jurisdiction of the Court in these matters
arises, directs the Court to ascertain who, according
to law, as nearly as it can be reconciled with Native
custom, ought in the judgment of the Court to
succeed to the hereditaments the subject of the
investigation. The intention of the Legislature
appears to be that English law shall regulate the
succession of real estate among the Maoris, except in
a case where a strict adherence to English rules of
law would be very repugnant to Native ideas and
customs. The leaning of the Court will always be to
uphold Crown grants and the rules of law applicable
to them, and will decline to consider the particular
circumstances under which the grant was originally
obtained, or the equities which might have been
created or understood to have been created at the
time thereunder, unless the evidence shall disclose
strong reasons for deviating from so obvious and
desirable a rule. It would be highly prejudicial to
allow the tribal tenure to grow up and affect land
that has once been clothed with a lawful title,
recognized and understood by the ordinary laws of
the country. Instead of subordinating English
tenures to Maori customs it will be the duty of the
Court in administering this Act to cause as rapid an
introduction amongst the Maoris, not only of English
tenures, but of the English rules of descent, as can be
secured without violently shocking Maori prejudices.
In this case we think that the evidence discloses no
equities in favor of the tribe, and we see no reason
to make any interference with the ordinary law,
except in one particular. The Court does not think
the descent of the whole estate upon the heir-at-law
could be reconciled with Native ideas of justice or
Maori custom; and in this respect only the operation
of the law will be interfered with. The Court deter-
mines in favor of all the children equally. The
judgment of the Court, therefore, is unanimous that
Erina Takaanini, Te Wirihana Takaanini, and Ihaka
Takaanini, ought to succeed to the hereditaments
above mentioned in equal shares as tenants in
common.

This decision was communicated to the claimants
by Mr. Munro.

NEW Zealand Settlements Act, 1863.-Ngati-
ruanui Coast.-At a sitting of the Compensation
Court held at Whanganui before T. H. Smith, Esq.,

Judge, on the 12th of December, 1866, and following
days, to hear and determine claims to land taken
under "The New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863,"
being part of the Ngatiruanui Coast Block, lying
between the Kaupokonui and Whanganui Rivers,
upon hearing the parties and upon the evidence
taken the Court gave the following judgment.

JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CLAIMANTS TO THE
NGATIRUANUI COAST BLOCK.

(Between the Kaupokonui and Whanganui Rivers.)

This is a portion of the Ngatiruanui Coast Block,
taken under the authority of "The New Zealand
Settlements Act, 1863, by an Order in Council
dated 2nd September, 1865. The Crown Agent, on
behalf of the Colonial Secretary, having abandoned the
right of the Crown to take that portion of the
Ngatiruanui Coast Block which lies to the east of the
Waitotara River, and of a line running 20 deg.
30 min. east of north, as shown on the map, the Court
has to deal with claims for compensation in respect
only of the confiscated land lying to the west of that
boundary.

The claims referred to this Court purporting to
relate to land between Kaupokonui and Waitotara
rivers are 68 in number, and contain 630 names of
claimants. In the course of the investigation a large
proportion of these names have been shown to be
duplicates. Some of the claimants have failed to
appear before the Court either personally or by agent,
and their claims have not been heard. The number
of persons interested in the claims heard by the
court is 265. Of these the claims of 119 are ad-
mitted, those of 146 are rejected. Of the last num-
ber 51 were found to be excluded under the fifth
of "The New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863."
The admitted claims are divided into two classes;
(1.) Claims established by proof of actual residence
and cultivation up to within a recent period: these
are 40 in number; (2) Claims of persons long absent
and settled elsewhere, but who themselves, or whose
parents, or near relatives, were in the year 1840
actual owners and possessors of the land the subject
of claim. These are 79 in number. Ancestral
claims where neither the claimant nor his parents
have ever occupied as settled residents are rejected.
The evidence before the Court shows that the land
comprised within the boundaries of this portion of
the Ngatiruanui Coast Block belonged to the Nga-
ruahine, Tangahoe, Pakakohi, and Ngarauru tribes,
and to other smaller tribes, more or less connected
with these. The boundaries of the land claimed by
these tribes respectively, can be fixed on or near the
sea coast, but there is no evidence as to the inland
boundaries, nor any data upon which the extent of
territory belonging to each tribe can be determined,
neither can the position or extent of any of the claims
be determined upon evidence before the Court. Such
evidence as would be required to determine these
points it would be difficult, if not impossible to pro-
cure, while the expense and delay involved in
attempting to procure it would be greatly dispro-
portionate to any advantage likely to result there-
from, either to the claimants or to the Government.
It has appeared to the Court that substantial justice
will be done to the admitted claimants by basing a
decision as to the value of their claims, and the
principle of assuming that the whole extent of the
land belonged to the whole number of resident
owners in equal proportions subject to the interest
of non-residents. Each loyal resident, or admitted
claimant of the first-class, with thus be entitled to the
value of a single share. The value of the claims of
the non-residents or admitted claimants of the second
class, is determined on the following principle. The